FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC. - Annual Report: 2016 (Form 10-K)

Com

 

 

 

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

☒  ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2016

 

OR

 

☐  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

For transition period from               to               

 

Commission File Number  001-14585

 

FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.

(Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

 

 

 

 

(808) 525-7000

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

 

Securities Registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share

(Title of Class)

NASDAQ Global Select Market

(Name of exchange on which registered)

 

Securities Registered Under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act:

None

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  YES  ◻  NO  ☒

 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 of 15(d) of the Act. YES  ◻  NO  ☒

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant: (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file reports), and (2) has been subject to such requirements for the past 90 days.  YES  ☒  NO  ◻    

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes  ☒  No  ◻



Indicate by a check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendments to this Form 10-K. ◻

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.  (Check one):

 

 

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).   ◻  YES    ☒  NO

 

There were no shares of the registrant’s voting common stock which was held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2016 (the last business day of the Company’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter).   

 

As of February 28, 2017, there were 139,546,615 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

 

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

 

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.

FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PART I

 

ITEM 1.  BUSINESS

 

General

 

First Hawaiian, Inc. (“FHI” or the “Parent”), a bank holding company, owns 100% of the outstanding common stock of First Hawaiian Bank (“FHB” or the “Bank”). References to “we,” “our,” “us,” or the “Company” refer to the Parent and its wholly-owned subsidiary, FHB, for purposes of discussion in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We are a bank holding company incorporated in the state of Delaware and headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii. Our wholly‑owned bank subsidiary, FHB, was founded in 1858 under the name Bishop & Company and was the first successful banking partnership in the Kingdom of Hawaii and the second oldest bank formed west of the Mississippi River. Today, FHB is the largest full service bank headquartered in Hawaii as measured by assets, loans, deposits and net income. As of December 31, 2016, we had $19.7 billion of assets, $11.5 billion of gross loans and leases, $16.8 billion of deposits and $2.5 billion of stockholders’ equity. We generated $230.2 million of net income or diluted earnings per share of $1.65 per share for the year ended December 31, 2016.

We have a highly diversified and balanced loan portfolio that has exhibited steady organic loan growth through various economic cycles. Gross loans have grown at a 6.1% compounded annual growth rate from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2016, and loan balances have increased every year since 2005 despite the Great Recession (which we define as January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009) and strong competition. We believe the strength and credit quality of our loan portfolio reflects our conservative credit‑driven underwriting approach. We also have the leading deposit market share position across our branch footprint. As of June 30, 2016, we had a 36.6% deposit market share in Hawaii, a 36.1% deposit market share in Guam and a 38.0% deposit market share in Saipan according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”).

Hawaii has been, and will continue to be, our primary market. As of December 31, 2016, 83% of our deposits and 70% of our loans were based in Hawaii. Hawaii is an attractive market that we believe will continue to provide steady organic growth opportunities. We pride ourselves on our deep rooted and extensive relationships within the Hawaii community. We believe these community ties coupled with the strength of our brand and market share provide an excellent long‑term opportunity to continue to deliver steady growth, stable operating efficiency and consistently strong performance.

Through the Bank, we operate a network of 62 branches in Hawaii (57 branches), Guam (3 branches) and Saipan (2 branches). We provide a diversified range of banking services to consumer and commercial customers, including deposit products, lending services and wealth management and trust services. Through our distribution channels, we offer a variety of deposit products to our customers, including checking and savings accounts and other types of deposit accounts. We offer comprehensive commercial banking services to middle market and large Hawaii‑based businesses with over $10 million of revenue, strong balance sheets and high quality collateral. We provide commercial and industrial lending, including auto dealer flooring, commercial real estate and construction lending. We also offer comprehensive consumer lending services focused on residential real estate lending, indirect auto financing and other consumer loans to individuals and small businesses through our branch, online and mobile distribution channels. Our wealth management business provides an array of trust services, private banking and investment management services. We also offer consumer and commercial credit cards and merchant processing.

We seek to develop comprehensive, long‑term banking relationships by offering a diverse array of products and services, cross‑selling those products and services and delivering high quality customer service. Our service culture and emphasis on repeat positive customer experiences are integral to our banking strategy and exemplified by our longstanding customer relationships.

We operate our business through three operating segments: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking and Treasury and Other. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) – Analysis of Business Segments” and “Note 22. Reportable Operating Segments” in our consolidated financial statements for more information. 

As of December 31, 2016, we had approximately 2,200 employees, which included full time employees, part time employees and temporary employees. None of our employees are parties to a collective bargaining agreement and we do not expect a significant change in the number of our employees in the near future.

Securities Exchange Act Reports and Additional Information

 

Our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports can be found free of charge on our website at www.fhb.com, under Investor Relations, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). These reports are also available free of charge on the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov.  

 

Information on our Investor Relations website, our main website and other websites referred to in this report is not incorporated by reference into this report or any other report filed with or furnished to the SEC. We have included such website addresses only as inactive textual references and do not intend them to be active links.

 

Our Products and Services

The Bank is a full service community bank focused on building relationships with our customers. We provide a variety of deposit accounts and lending services to commercial and consumer customers, as well as credit card products, wealth management services and merchant processing services. For over ten years, the Bank has maintained the largest deposit market share in Hawaii and currently has the leading market position in deposits in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. We offer a comprehensive range of commercial lending services including commercial and industrial lending, auto dealer flooring, commercial real estate lending and construction lending. Our primary consumer lending services are mortgage lending, auto finance, small business loans, personal installment and credit cards. Our wealth management business offers individuals investment and financial planning services, insurance protection, trust and estate services and private banking.

Reorganization Transactions

On April 1, 2016, BNPP effected a series of transactions (“Reorganization Transactions”) pursuant to which FHI, which was then known as BancWest Corporation (“BancWest”), contributed Bank of the West (“BOW”), its subsidiary at the time, to BancWest Holding Inc. (“BWHI”), a newly formed bank holding company and a wholly‑owned subsidiary of BancWest. Following the contribution of BOW to BWHI, BancWest distributed its interest in BWHI to BNPP, and BWHI became a wholly‑owned subsidiary of BNPP. As part of these transactions, we amended our certificate of incorporation to change our name to First Hawaiian, Inc., with First Hawaiian Bank remaining our only direct wholly‑owned subsidiary.

On July 1, 2016, in order to comply with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s requirement (under Regulation YY) applicable to BNPP that a foreign banking organization with $50 billion or more in U.S. non‑branch assets as of June 30, 2015 establish a U.S. intermediate holding company and hold its interest in the substantial majority of its U.S. subsidiaries through the intermediate holding company by July 1, 2016, we became an indirect wholly‑owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas USA, Inc. (“BNP Paribas USA”), BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company. As part of that reorganization, we became a direct wholly‑owned subsidiary of BancWest Corporation (“BWC”), a direct wholly‑owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas USA.

Initial Public Offering and Separation from BNPP

On July 8, 2016, we filed a registration statement with the SEC on Form S-1. On August 4, 2016, FHI’s common stock began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbol “FHB”. On August 9, 2016, FHI completed its initial public offering (“IPO”) of 24,250,000 shares of common stock, which included the full exercise of the underwriters’ option to purchase an additional 3,163,043 shares at $23.00 per share. As of December 31, 2017, BNPP beneficially owned approximately 83% of FHI’s common stock. On February 6, 2017, FHI completed its first secondary offering of 25,000,000 shares of common stock at $32.00 per share, and on February 17, 2017 the underwriters’ exercised their option to purchase an additional 3,750,000 shares of our common stock at $32.00 per share. FHI did not receive any of the proceeds from the two sales of shares of its common stock by BWC. Upon closing of the exercise of the underwriters’ option on February 17, 2017, BNPP beneficially owned approximately 62% of FHI’s common stock.

 

We entered into a transitional services agreement with BNPP, BWHI, BOW and FHB (the “Transitional Services Agreement”) pursuant to which BNPP, BWHI and BOW will continue to provide us with certain services they currently provide to us either directly or on a pass-through basis, and we have agreed to continue to provide, or arrange to provide, BNPP, BWHI and BOW with certain services currently provided to them, either directly or on a pass-through basis. The Transitional Services Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2018, although the provision of certain services will terminate on earlier dates. In connection with our transition to a stand-alone public company and our separation from BNPP, we expect to incur incremental ongoing and one-time expenses of between $12.3 million and $17.0 million in the aggregate per year for the years ending December 31, 2017 and 2018. We expect our incremental ongoing costs to include those incurred under the Transitional Services Agreement, as well as increases in audit fees, insurance premiums, employee salaries and benefits (including stock-based compensation expenses for employees and non-employee directors) and consulting fees. Our estimates also include cost increases that we expect to result from the higher pricing of services by third-party vendors whose future contracts with us do not reflect BOW volumes or the benefits of BNPP bargaining power. Our one-time expenses incurred in connection with our IPO included professional fees, consulting fees and certain filing and listing fees. In addition, once we are no longer subject to the Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review (“CCAR”) process, we expect our stress testing-related compliance costs to increase incrementally as we will continue to require certain services for our Dodd-Frank Act Stress Testing (“DFAST”) process and the expenses associated with those services will no longer be reimbursed by BNPP. The actual amount of the incremental expenses we will incur as a stand-alone public company and as part of our separation from BNPP may be higher, perhaps significantly, from our current estimates for a number of reasons, including, among others, the final terms we are able to negotiate with service providers prior to the termination of the Transitional Services Agreement, as well as additional costs we may incur that we have not currently anticipated.

 

Competition

 

We operate in the highly competitive financial services industry and face significant competition for customers from financial institutions located both within and beyond our principal markets. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, non‑bank financial services companies and other financial institutions operating within or near the areas we serve. Additionally, certain large banks headquartered on the U.S. mainland and large community banking institutions target the same customers we do. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to expand their geographic reach by providing services over the Internet and for non‑banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems.

Our Strategic Initiatives

Our business strategy is focused on providing full service banking across our branch footprint, and we strive to be Hawaii’s bank of choice for consumer and commercial customers. We believe the combination of our brand, service quality, prudent approach to risk management and ties to the communities we serve provides us with steady growth opportunities and has allowed us to consistently deliver top tier operating performance. Our ongoing strategic focus and business initiatives include continuing to grow organically by leveraging our existing core competencies and positioning our business for the evolving bank landscape. We have a deep understanding of our customers and local market conditions which has been, and will continue to be, a primary factor in the success of our franchise.

Supervision and Regulation

The Company is subject to extensive regulation under federal and state banking laws that establish a comprehensive framework for their operations. This regulatory framework may materially impact our growth potential and financial performance and is intended primarily for the protection of depositors, customers, the federal deposit insurance fund and the banking system as a whole, not for the protection of our stockholders or other investors. Significant elements of the statutes, regulations and policies applicable to the Company are described below. This description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the full text of the statutes, regulations and policies described.

Regulatory Agencies

FHI is a bank holding company under the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (“BHC Act”) and has elected to be treated as a financial holding company under the BHC Act. Consequently, FHI and its subsidiary are subject to the supervision, regulation, examination and reporting requirements of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Federal Reserve”). The BHC Act provides generally for “umbrella” regulation of bank holding companies by the

Federal Reserve and functional regulation of holding company subsidiaries by applicable regulatory agencies. The BHC Act, however, authorizes the Federal Reserve to examine any subsidiary of a bank holding company, other than a depository institution, engaged in activities permissible for a depository institution. The Federal Reserve is also granted the authority, in certain circumstances, to require reports of, examine and adopt rules applicable to any holding company subsidiary.

In general, the BHC Act limits the activities permissible for bank holding companies. Bank holding companies electing to be treated as financial holding companies, however, may engage in additional activities under the BHC Act as described below under “— Permissible Activities under the BHC Act”. For a bank holding company to be eligible to elect financial holding company status, all of its subsidiary insured depository institutions must be well‑capitalized and well‑managed as described below under “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework” and must have received at least a “satisfactory rating” on such institution’s most recent examination under the Community Reinvestment Act (the “CRA”). The bank holding company itself must also be well‑capitalized and well‑managed in order to be eligible to elect financial holding company status. If a financial holding company fails to continue to meet any of the prerequisites for financial holding company status after engaging in activities not permissible for bank holding companies that have not elected to be treated as financial holding companies, the company must enter into an agreement with the Federal Reserve to comply with all applicable capital and management requirements. If the company does not return to compliance within 180 days, the Federal Reserve may order the company to divest its subsidiary banks or the company may be required to discontinue or divest investments in companies engaged in activities permissible only for a bank holding company electing to be treated as a financial holding company.

FHB is an FDIC‑insured bank chartered under the laws of the state of Hawaii. FHB is not a member of the Federal Reserve System. Consequently, the FDIC and the Hawaii Department of Financial Institutions (the “DFI”) are the primary regulators of FHB and also regulate its subsidiaries. FHB’s branch operations in Guam are also subject to regulation by the Banking and Insurance Commissioner of the Government of Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation (the “Guam Banking and Insurance Commissioner”). FHB’s branch operation in Saipan, which is one of the principal islands of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”), is subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the Division of Banking of the CNMI Department of Commerce. In addition, as the owner of a Hawaii‑chartered bank, FHI is registered as a financial institution holding company under the Hawaii Code of Financial Institutions (the “Hawaii Code”) and is subject to the registration, reporting and examination requirements of the Hawaii Code, as well as supervision and examination by the Hawaii DFI.

The Company offers certain insurance, investment and trust products through FHB and its subsidiary, Bishop Street Capital Management Corporation, a registered investment advisor with the SEC. Bishop Street Capital Management Corporation is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, as administered by the SEC. FHB is also registered as a municipal securities advisor with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (“MSRB”) and the SEC and is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the MSRB and the SEC. FHB’s insurance brokerage activities in Hawaii are conducted under its insurance producer license by appointed agents (licensed insurance producers) and those licensees are subject to regulation by the Insurance Division of the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (the “DCCA Insurance Division”). FHB’s trust services in Hawaii are subject to regulation by the FDIC and the Hawaii DFI. FHB’s insurance activities in Guam are conducted under a general agent’s license issued by the Guam Banking and Insurance Commissioner and FHB is therefore subject to regulation by the insurance branch of the regulatory division of the Guam Department of Revenue and Taxation.

FHB and its affiliates are also subject to supervision, regulation, examination and enforcement by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”), with respect to consumer protection laws and regulations. In addition, the Company is subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) administered by the SEC and the rules adopted by NASDAQ applicable to listed companies. FHB and its affiliates are subject to numerous other statutes and regulations that affect its business activities and operations.

Regulatory Impact of Control by BNPP

As long as we are controlled by BNPP, for purposes of the BHC Act, BNPP’s regulatory status may impact our regulatory status as well as our regulatory burden and hence our ability to expand by acquisition or engage in new activities. For example, unsatisfactory examination ratings or enforcement actions regarding BNPP could impact our ability to obtain or preclude us from obtaining any necessary approvals or informal clearance to make an acquisition or engage in new activities. Furthermore, to the extent that we are required to obtain regulatory approvals under the BHC Act to make

acquisitions or expand our activities, as long as BNPP controls the Company, BNPP would also be required to obtain BHC Act approvals for such acquisitions or activities as well. The Federal Reserve may determine that BNPP controls us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes until its ownership and control falls to 4.9% or below of any class of our voting securities, or even to zero percent.

In addition, U.S. regulatory restrictions and requirements on non‑U.S. banks such as BNPP that have a certain amount of assets may result in additional restrictions and burdens on the Company that would not otherwise be applicable. In particular, since July 1, 2016, BNPP has been required to hold its interest in the Company through its U.S. intermediate holding company, BNP Paribas USA, as required by the Federal Reserve’s Regulation YY, and certain enhanced supervision and prudential standards that apply to BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company will apply to the Company until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which such standards no longer apply to us.

As a banking organization headquartered in France, BNPP is also subject to oversight by the European Union (the “EU”) financial services regulators and, for limited matters, by the French Autorité de Contrôle Prudentiel et de Résolution. As of January 1, 2014, BNPP became subject to a revised capital framework for EU‑regulated financial institutions, the fourth EU Capital Requirements Directive and EU Capital Requirements Regulation (collectively, “CRD IV”). These regulations are largely based on the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision’s (the “Basel Committee’s”) final capital framework for strengthening international capital standards (“Basel III”). These rules have been transposed under French law, and are therefore applicable to BNPP and its controlled affiliates, and include the following:

•Compliance with minimum solvency and other ratios and minimum equity requirements.  As long as the Company is a controlled subsidiary of BNPP, its activities may be limited by the structures of the capital adequacy regimes that BNPP is subject to as a French and EU‑regulated entity.

•Compensation provisions with the objective of, among other things, limiting the ratio of variable to fixed compensation of employees identified as material risk takers. The CRD IV compensation standards apply to the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and to certain other of its officers for as long as the Company is a controlled subsidiary of BNPP.

•A requirement to annually submit a Group Recovery and Resolution Plan.  This obligation has been further detailed by Directive 2014/59 establishing a framework for the recovery and resolution of credit institutions and investment firms.

Permissible Activities under the BHC Act

In general, the BHC Act limits the business of bank holding companies to banking, managing or controlling banks and other activities that the Federal Reserve has determined to be so closely related to banking as to be a proper incident thereto.

Bank holding companies that qualify and elect to be treated as “financial holding companies,” like us, may engage in, or acquire and retain the shares of a company engaged in, a broad range of additional activities that are (i) financial in nature or incidental to such financial activities or (ii) complementary to a financial activity and do not pose a substantial risk to the safety and soundness of depository institutions or the financial system generally. These activities include securities underwriting and dealing, insurance underwriting and brokerage and making merchant banking investments.

The BHC Act does not place territorial restrictions on permissible non‑banking activities of bank holding companies. The Federal Reserve has the power to order any bank holding company or its subsidiaries to terminate any activity or to terminate its ownership or control of any subsidiary when the Federal Reserve has reasonable grounds to believe that continuing such activity, ownership or control constitutes a serious risk to the financial soundness, safety or stability of any bank subsidiary of the bank holding company.

Permissible Activities for Banks

As a Hawaii‑chartered bank, FHB’s business is generally limited to activities permitted by Hawaii law and any applicable federal laws. Under the Hawaii Code, the Bank may generally engage in all usual banking activities, including taking deposits; making loans and extensions of credit; borrowing money; issuing, confirming and advising letters of

credit; entering into repurchase agreements; buying and selling foreign currency and, subject to certain limitations, making investments. Subject to prior approval by the Commissioner of the Hawaii DFI and by the DCCA Insurance Division, the Bank may also permissibly engage in activities related to a trust business, activities relating to insurance and annuities and any activity permissible for a national banking association.

Hawaii law also imposes restrictions on the Bank’s activities and corporate governance requirements intended to ensure the safety and soundness of the bank. For example, the Hawaii Code requires that at least one of the directors of the Bank, as well as the Chief Executive Officer of the bank, be residents of the State of Hawaii. FHB is also restricted under the Hawaii Code to investing in certain types of investments and is generally limited in the amount of money it can lend to a single borrower or invest in securities issued by a single issuer (in each case, 20% of FHB’s capital stock and surplus).

Enhanced Prudential Standards

The financial crisis led to the adoption and revision of numerous laws and regulations applicable to financial institutions operating in the United States. In particular, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd‑Frank Act”) significantly restructured the financial regulatory regime in the United States and provides for enhanced supervision and prudential standards for, among other things, bank holding companies that have total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more as an average over the four most recent consecutive fiscal quarters. The Federal Reserve adopted similar enhanced prudential standards for the U.S. operations of foreign banking organizations such as BNPP, including BNPP’s intermediate holding company and the subsidiaries thereof. Prior to the Reorganization Transactions, BancWest had average total consolidated assets in excess of $50 billion reflecting the combined assets of BOW and FHB over the four most recent consecutive fiscal quarters. FHI, on a standalone basis following the Reorganization Transactions, has total consolidated assets below $50 billion. Nonetheless, many enhanced supervision and prudential standards continue to apply to FHI following the completion of the Reorganization Transactions as a company controlled by BWC and included in its consolidated financial statements. Furthermore, many of the standards will continue to apply to FHI until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which such standards no longer apply to us, irrespective of whether FHI’s average total consolidated assets are less than $50 billion before such time. It is possible that BNPP’s ownership and control of us may need to fall to 4.9% or below of any class of our voting securities, or even to zero, before such standards will cease to apply to us.

Among other changes, the Dodd‑Frank Act created a new systemic risk oversight body, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (the “FSOC”) to coordinate the efforts of the primary U.S. financial regulatory agencies (including the Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the SEC) in establishing regulations to address systemic financial stability concerns. The Dodd‑Frank Act also directed the FSOC to make recommendations to the Federal Reserve regarding supervisory requirements and prudential standards applicable to systemically important financial institutions (which includes all bank holding companies with over $50 billion in average total consolidated assets), including capital, leverage, liquidity and risk‑management requirements. The Dodd‑Frank Act mandates that the requirements applicable to systemically important financial institutions be more stringent than those applicable to other financial companies. The Federal Reserve has discretionary authority to establish additional prudential standards on its own or at the FSOC’s recommendation.

Capital Planning (Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review) and Stress Testing.  As part of the enhanced prudential requirements applicable to systemically important financial institutions, the Federal Reserve conducts annual analyses of bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in average total consolidated assets to determine whether the companies have sufficient capital on a consolidated basis necessary to absorb losses in three economic and financial scenarios generated by the Federal Reserve: baseline, adverse and severely adverse scenarios. The Federal Reserve conducted its first annual analysis of BancWest (as it existed prior to the Reorganization Transactions) during the second quarter of 2016. BancWest also was required to conduct its own semi‑annual stress analysis (together with the Federal Reserve’s stress analysis, the “stress tests”) to assess the potential impact on BancWest of the economic and financial conditions used as part of the Federal Reserve’s annual stress analysis. The Federal Reserve may also use, and require companies to use, additional stress factors in the adverse and severely adverse scenarios or additional or more complex scenarios designed to capture salient risks to specific business groups. The stress tests in 2016 applied to the Company on the basis of BancWest’s profile as it existed prior to the Reorganization Transactions. Beginning in 2017, these stress tests requirements will apply to the Company through a holding company above First Hawaiian, Inc. A summary of results of the Federal Reserve’s analysis under the adverse and severely adverse stress scenarios was publicly disclosed, and the bank holding companies subject to the rules disclosed a summary of the company‑run severely adverse stress test results. These stress test requirements will remain applicable to us until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank

regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer required to be included in the stress tests applicable to the other U.S. entities of BNPP.

Additionally, the Federal Reserve’s and the FDIC’s DFAST rules require bank holding companies and banks with average total consolidated assets greater than $10 billion, such as the Company and the Bank, to conduct an annual company‑run stress test of capital, consolidated earnings and losses under one base and at least two hypothetical, stressful macroeconomic and financial market scenarios provided by the federal bank regulators, as well as certain mandated assumptions about capital distributions prescribed in the DFAST rules. The Company and the Bank will remain subject to the DFAST company‑run stress test requirements after they are no longer subject to the stress tests applicable to the U.S. entities of BNPP.

The Federal Reserve, the FDIC and the Hawaii DFI will consider the results of the company‑run stress tests as an important factor in evaluating the capital adequacy of each of the Company and the Bank, in evaluating any proposed acquisitions and in determining whether any proposed dividends or stock repurchases by the Company or the Bank may be an unsafe or unsound practice.

Because BancWest, prior to the Reorganization Transactions, was a U.S. bank holding company with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more as of December 31, 2015, it was required to submit an annual capital plan in April 2016 (which we refer to as the “2016 capital plan”) as part of the CCAR process that relates to BancWest and its consolidated subsidiaries as of December 31, 2015, including FHB and BOW. Covered bank holding companies, such as BancWest, may make capital distributions — which include payments of dividends or stock repurchases not only by the covered bank holding company but also its subsidiaries — only in accordance with a capital plan that has been reviewed and not objected to by the Federal Reserve (or any amendments to such plan). Beginning in April 2017, one or more of the Company’s U.S. holding company parents will be required to submit an annual capital plan on an ongoing basis. The CCAR process is intended to help ensure that these bank holding companies have robust, forward‑looking capital planning processes that account for each company’s unique risks and that permit continued operation during times of economic and financial stress. Each of the bank holding companies participating in the CCAR process is also required to collect and report certain related data to the Federal Reserve on a monthly and quarterly basis to allow the Federal Reserve to monitor progress against the approved capital plans. Each capital plan must include a view of capital adequacy under the stress test scenarios described above. Our payment of dividends will continue to be subject to a capital plan that has been reviewed and not objected to by the Federal Reserve for so long as we are a subsidiary of BWC or another company filing a capital plan. The Federal Reserve’s CCAR guidance, consistent with prior Federal Reserve guidance, also provides that capital plans contemplating dividend payout ratios exceeding 30% of after‑tax net income will receive particularly close scrutiny.

BancWest submitted the 2016 capital plan on April 5, 2016. In June 2016, the Federal Reserve publicly released BancWest’s supervisory stress test results and announced that it did not object to BancWest’s 2016 capital plan, which included non‑objection to the payment of quarterly dividends to be paid by us through the second quarter of 2017.

One or more of the Company’s U.S. holding companies will submit a capital plan on or about April 5, 2017, and dividends and any share repurchases proposed and/or intended to be made by the Company after the second quarter of 2017 must be included therein if the capital plan requirements applicable to BNPP’s other U.S. entities are applicable to us at that time. We expect to remain subject to the Federal Reserve’s CCAR review, including capital plan requirements, until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer required to be included in the CCAR review, including the capital plan requirements, applicable to the other U.S. entities of BNPP. The Federal Reserve recently amended its capital planning and stress testing rules to, among other things, generally limit the ability of a bank holding company subject to CCAR rules to make quarterly capital distributions — that is, dividends and share repurchases — if the amount of its actual cumulative quarterly capital issuances of instruments that qualify as regulatory capital are less than it had indicated in its submitted capital plan as to which it has received a non‑objection from the Federal Reserve. For example, if a bank holding company issues a smaller amount of additional common stock than it had stated in its capital plan, it would be required to reduce common dividends or the amount of common stock repurchases so that the dollar amount of capital distributions, net of the dollar amount of additional common stock issued, or net distributions, is not greater than the dollar amount of net distributions relating to its common stock included in its capital plan, as measured on an aggregate basis beginning in the third quarter of the nine‑quarter planning horizon through the end of the then current quarter. However, not raising sufficient amounts of common stock as planned would not affect distributions related to Additional Tier 1 capital or Tier 2 capital instruments. These limitations also contain several important qualifications and exceptions, including that scheduled dividend payments on (as opposed to repurchases of) any Additional Tier 1 capital and Tier 2 capital instruments are not restricted if a bank holding company

fails to issue a sufficient amount of such instruments as planned, as well as provisions for certain de minimis excess distributions.

U.S. Department of Treasury’s Assessment Fee Program.  The U.S. Treasury Department issued a rule implementing Section 155 of the Dodd‑Frank Act to establish an assessment schedule for top‑tier bank holding companies with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more to cover expenses associated with the Office of Financial Research, the FSOC and implementation of the Orderly Liquidation Authority by the FDIC. The Company believes the assessment is not material to its consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Total Loss‑Absorbing Capacity.  In December 2016, the Federal Reserve issued a final rule that establishes loss‑absorbency and related requirements for any U.S. intermediate holding company that is required to be formed pursuant to the Federal Reserve’s Regulation YY and is controlled by a global systemically important foreign banking organization (a “foreign G‑SIB”). BNPP has been identified by the Financial Stability Board as a foreign G‑SIB and is a foreign G‑SIB for purposes of the final rule, which becomes effective on January 1, 2019. Accordingly, BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company will be subject to these requirements. The final rule addresses U.S. implementation of the Financial Stability Board’s total loss‑absorbing capacity (“TLAC”) principles and term sheet.

Although the rule will only apply to a foreign G‑SIB’s U.S. intermediate holding company and not to that intermediate holding company’s subsidiary holding companies, such as the Company, or depository institutions, such as the Bank, the rule will impact aspects of the operations of holding companies and depository institutions that are subsidiaries of covered U.S. intermediate holding companies. For example, the final rule prohibits BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company from (i) guaranteeing obligations of the Company and the Bank if an insolvency or receivership of the intermediate holding company could give the counterparty the right to exercise a default right (for example, early termination) against us or the bank, (ii) incurring liabilities guaranteed by the Company or the Bank and (iii) entering into qualified financial contracts with any person that is not an affiliate of the intermediate holding company (potentially increasing the number of such contracts that intermediate holding company enters into with its subsidiaries, which may include the Company or the Bank, which could then enter into offsetting contracts with third parties).

Additional Proposed SIFI Rules.  The Federal Reserve has issued several proposed and final rules under its authority to establish enhanced prudential standards for large bank holding companies, including the stress testing and capital adequacy rules discussed above. In addition, in February 2014, the Federal Reserve approved a final rule implementing several heightened prudential requirements, including the following:

 

While the final rule adopted by the Federal Reserve largely implements its prior proposals regarding liquidity and risk management, the final rule does not address the Federal Reserve’s proposals regarding early remediation requirements.

Subsequently, in March 2016, the Federal Reserve proposed rules to establish single‑counterparty credit limits as part of the enhanced prudential standards for large bank holding companies. The proposed limits would impose more stringent requirements for credit exposure among major financial institutions. As proposed, the limits would apply to BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company and its subsidiaries, including the Company, as well as BNPP. Although the proposed limits may not be applicable to the Company on a standalone basis, they could have the effect of constraining the management of our credit exposures because of the consolidated application of the limits, including with respect to hedges.

Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies

The BHC Act, the Bank Merger Act, the Hawaii Code and other federal and state statutes regulate acquisitions of banks and other FDIC‑insured depository institutions. The Company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before (i) acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of any voting shares of any bank or bank holding company, if after such acquisition, it will directly or indirectly own or control 5% or more of any class of voting shares of the institution, (ii) acquiring all or substantially all of the assets of any bank (other than directly through the Bank) or (iii) merging or consolidating with any other bank holding company. Under the Bank Merger Act, the prior approval of the FDIC is required for the Bank to merge with another bank or purchase all or substantially all of the assets or assume any of the deposits of another FDIC‑insured depository institution. In reviewing applications seeking approval of merger and acquisition transactions, bank regulators consider, among other things, the competitive effect and public benefits of the transactions, the capital position and managerial resources of the combined organization, the risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system, the applicant’s performance record under the CRA, the applicant’s compliance with fair housing and other consumer protection laws and the effectiveness of all organizations involved in combating money laundering activities. In addition, failure to implement or maintain adequate compliance programs could cause bank regulators not to approve an acquisition where regulatory approval is required or to prohibit an acquisition even if approval is not required. In addition, pursuant to the Dodd‑Frank Act, the BHC Act was amended to require the Federal Reserve to, when evaluating a proposed transaction, consider the extent to which the transaction would result in greater or more concentrated risks to the stability of the U.S. banking or financial system. Under applicable laws, the Company may not be permitted to acquire any bank in Hawaii because it controls more than 30% of the total amount of deposits in the Hawaii market. As a result, any further growth in the Hawaii market will most likely have to occur organically rather than by acquisition.

Dividends 

FHI is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank and its subsidiaries. Virtually all of FHI’s income comes from dividends from the Bank, which is also the primary source of FHI’s liquidity and funds to pay dividends on its equity and, if FHI were to incur debt in the future, interest and principal on its debt. There are statutory and regulatory limitations on the payment of dividends by the Bank to FHI, as well as by FHI to its stockholders.

Federal bank regulators are authorized to determine, under certain circumstances relating to the financial condition of a bank holding company or a bank, that the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit payment thereof. In particular, federal bank regulators have stated that paying dividends that deplete a banking organization’s capital base to an inadequate level would be an unsafe and unsound banking practice and that banking organizations should generally pay dividends only out of current operating earnings. In addition, the ability of banks and bank holding companies to pay dividends, and the contents of their respective dividend policies, could be impacted by a range of regulatory changes made pursuant to the Dodd‑Frank Act.

Payment of Dividends by the Bank.  In addition to the restrictions discussed above, the Bank is subject to limitations under Hawaii law regarding the amount of dividends that it may pay to the Parent. In general, under Hawaii law, dividends from the Bank may not exceed the bank’s retained earnings provided that the bank will, after the dividend, have the minimum paid‑in capital and surplus required under Hawaii law, which, for a bank which has trust operations, is $6.5 million. Hawaii law also effectively restricts a bank from paying a dividend, or the amount of the dividend, unless that bank’s capital and surplus is $6.5 million multiplied by 133%, or $8.6 million. This amount is not necessarily indicative of amounts that may be paid or available to be paid in future periods. Under Hawaii banking law, for example, paying “excessive dividends” in relation to a bank’s capital position, earnings capacity and asset quality could be deemed

to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice. Under the Hawaii Business Corporation Act, a dividend or other distribution may not be made if a bank would not be able to pay its debts as they become due in the ordinary course of business or if its total assets would be less than the sum of its total liabilities and the amounts that would be needed to satisfy shareholders with preferential rights of distribution. In addition, under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (“FDIA”), an insured institution may not pay a dividend if payment would cause it to become undercapitalized or if it already is undercapitalized. See “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework” below.

Payment of Dividends by the Parent.  As a bank holding company, the Parent is subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve. In particular, the dividend policies and share repurchases of the Parent are reviewed by the Federal Reserve based on the 2016 capital plan and any future capital plan to which the Parent may be subject, and will be assessed against, among other things, the Company’s and/or one or more of its parent bank holding companies’ ability to achieve the required capital ratios under applicable capital rules (including the applicable capital conservation buffer) as they are phased in by U.S. regulators. See “— Enhanced Prudential Standards” above and “— Regulatory Capital Requirements” below.

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders

Transactions between the Bank and its subsidiaries, on the one hand, and the Company or any other affiliate of the Company, on the other hand, are regulated under federal banking law. The Federal Reserve Act imposes quantitative and qualitative requirements and collateral requirements on “covered transactions” by the Bank with, or for the benefit of, its affiliates, and generally requires those transactions to be on terms at least as favorable to the Bank as if the transaction were conducted with an unaffiliated third party. Covered transactions are defined by statute to include a loan or extension of credit, as well as a purchase of securities issued by an affiliate, a purchase of assets (unless otherwise exempted by the Federal Reserve) from the affiliate, certain derivative transactions that create a credit exposure to an affiliate, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, and the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate. In general, any such transaction by the Bank or its subsidiaries must be limited to certain thresholds on an individual and aggregate basis and, for credit transactions with any affiliate, must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral.

Federal law also limits a bank’s authority to extend credit to its directors, executive officers, principal shareholders (and persons that beneficially own or control more than 10% of any class of the bank’s voting stock), as well as to entities owned or controlled by such persons. Among other things, extensions of credit to such insiders are required to be made on terms that are substantially the same as, and follow credit underwriting procedures that are not less stringent than, those prevailing for comparable transactions with non‑insiders. Also, the terms of such extensions of credit may not involve more than the normal risk of non‑repayment or present other unfavorable features and may not exceed certain limitations on the amount of credit extended to such persons individually and in the aggregate. Certain extensions of credit also require the approval of the Bank’s board of directors.

Source of Strength

Federal law requires bank holding companies to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to their subsidiary banks. Under this requirement, the Parent is expected to commit resources to support the Bank, including at times when the Parent may not be in a financial position to provide such resources, and it may not be in its, or its stockholders’ or creditors’, best interests to do so. In addition, any capital loans the Parent makes to the Bank are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of the Bank. In the event of the Parent’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the Parent to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of the Bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.

Liability of Commonly Controlled Institutions

Under the FDIA, FDIC‑insured depository institutions can be held liable for any loss incurred, or reasonably expected to be incurred, by the FDIC in connection with the default of another insured depository institution controlled by the same bank holding company and for any assistance provided by the FDIC to another FDIC‑insured depository institution that is in danger of default and that is controlled by the same bank holding company. “Default” means generally the appointment of a conservator or receiver for the institution. “In danger of default” means generally the existence of certain conditions indicating that a default is likely to occur in the absence of regulatory assistance. This cross‑guarantee liability for a loss at a commonly controlled insured institution is subordinated in right of payment to deposit liabilities,

secured obligations, any other general or senior liability and any obligation subordinated to depositors or other general creditors, other than obligations owed to any affiliate of the depository institution (with certain exceptions). Under this cross‑guarantee liability requirement, while FHB is under common control with BOW (which we expect to continue until such time as we are no longer controlled by BNPP), FHB could be held liable for any FDIC losses that occur in the event of a default or threat of default of BOW.

Regulatory Capital Requirements

Capital Requirements Applicable to Top‑Tier Holding Companies in an Organizational Structure.  The Federal Reserve monitors the capital adequacy of the Company, and the FDIC and the Hawaii DFI monitor the capital adequacy of the Bank. The bank regulators currently use a combination of risk‑based ratios and a leverage ratio to evaluate capital adequacy.

In July 2013, the federal bank regulators approved final rules, which we refer to as the New Capital Rules, implementing Basel III and various provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act. The New Capital Rules substantially revise the risk‑based capital requirements applicable to bank holding companies and banks, compared to the previous risk‑based capital rules that were based on the 1988 capital accord (“Basel I”), as implemented by the federal bank regulators. The New Capital Rules revise the components of capital and address other issues affecting the numerator in regulatory capital ratio calculations. The New Capital Rules also address risk weights and other issues affecting the denominator in regulatory capital ratio calculations, including by replacing the existing risk‑weighting approach derived from Basel I with a more risk‑sensitive approach based, in part, on the standardized approach adopted by the Basel Committee in its 2004 capital accords (“Basel II”). The New Capital Rules also implement the requirements of Section 939A of the Dodd‑Frank Act to remove references to credit ratings from the federal bank regulators’ rules. Subject to a phase‑in period for various provisions, the New Capital Rules became effective on January 1, 2015.

The New Capital Rules, among other things, (i) introduce a new capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), (ii) specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting specified requirements, (iii) define CET1 narrowly by requiring that most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital measures be made to CET1 and not to the other components of capital and (iv) expand the scope of the deductions/adjustments to capital as compared to existing regulations.

Under the New Capital Rules, the minimum capital ratios that became effective on January 1, 2015 are as follows:

•4.5% CET1 to risk‑weighted assets,

•6.0% Tier 1 capital (that is, CET1 plus Additional Tier 1 capital) to risk‑weighted assets,

•8.0% total capital (that is, Tier 1 capital plus Tier 2 capital) to risk‑weighted assets, and

•4.0% Tier 1 capital to average quarterly assets.

The New Capital Rules also introduce a new capital conservation buffer designed to absorb losses during periods of economic stress. The capital conservation buffer is composed entirely of CET1, on top of these minimum risk‑weighted asset ratios. In addition, the New Capital Rules provide for a countercyclical capital buffer applicable only to certain covered institutions. The Company does not expect the countercyclical capital buffer to be applicable to Company or the Bank. Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk‑weighted assets above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer (or below the combined capital conservation buffer and countercyclical capital buffer, when the latter is applied) face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and compensation based on the amount of the shortfall.

The implementation of the capital conservation buffer began on January 1, 2016 at the 0.625% level and will be phased in over a three‑year period (increasing by 0.625% on each subsequent January 1, until it reaches 2.5% on January 1, 2019). When fully phased‑in, the New Capital Rules will require an additional capital conservation buffer of 2.5% of CET1, effectively resulting in minimum ratios of (i) 7% CET1 to risk‑weighted assets, (ii) 8.5% Tier 1 capital to risk‑weighted assets, and (iii) 10.5% total capital to risk‑weighted assets. In addition, as described above, the Company currently is also subject to the Federal Reserve’s capital plan rule and supervisory CCAR program, pursuant to which its ability to make capital distributions and repurchase or redeem capital securities may be limited unless it and/or its parent holding companies are able to demonstrate its ability to meet applicable minimum capital ratios (calculated under the general risk‑based capital rules), as well as other requirements, over a nine quarter planning horizon under a “severely

adverse” macroeconomic scenario generated yearly by the federal bank regulators. See “— Enhanced Prudential Standards — Stress Testing and Capital Planning (Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review)” for more information on these topics.

The New Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights, certain deferred tax assets and significant investments in non‑consolidated financial entities be deducted from CET1 to the extent that any one such category exceeds 10% of CET1 or all such categories in the aggregate exceed 15% of CET1.

Implementation of the deductions and other adjustments to CET1 began on January 1, 2015 and is being phased‑in over a four‑year period (beginning at 40% on January 1, 2015 and an additional 20% per year thereafter).

The New Capital Rules also prescribe a new standardized approach for risk weightings that expands the risk‑weighting categories from the four Basel I‑derived categories (0%, 20%, 50% and 100%) to a much larger and more risk‑sensitive number of categories, depending on the nature of the assets, generally ranging from 0%, for U.S. government and agency securities, to 600% for certain equity exposures, and resulting in higher risk weights for a variety of asset categories.

Bank holding companies and banks are also required to comply with minimum leverage ratio requirements. These requirements provide for a minimum ratio of Tier 1 capital to total consolidated quarterly average assets (as defined for regulatory purposes), net of the loan loss reserve, goodwill and certain other intangible assets (which we refer to as the “leverage ratio”) of 4.0% for all bank holding companies.

With respect to the Bank, the New Capital Rules also revise the prompt corrective action regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA. See “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework.”

Regulatory Capital Requirements Applicable While First Hawaiian Is Not a Top‑Tier Holding Company.  On July 1, 2016, BNPP transferred its interest in the Company to BWC in connection with BNPP’s establishment of its U.S. intermediate holding company as required pursuant to the Federal Reserve’s Regulation YY. As of and since such date, regulatory capital requirements have applied to BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company on a consolidated basis, including the Company as part of that consolidated group (as BNPP’s top‑tier U.S. bank holding company in its organizational structure), and may not apply to the Company on a stand‑alone basis as a lower‑tier bank holding company subsidiary of BNPP. However, failure by the intermediate holding company to meet its regulatory capital requirements could impact the Company’s activities and operations. See “— Acquisitions by Bank Holding Companies” above and “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework” below. Nonetheless, the Company intends to monitor and manage its capital adequacy in a manner that would result in the Company satisfying the capital requirements described herein and as applicable to a top‑tier U.S. bank holding company on a stand‑alone basis. Management expects that the capital requirements described herein will apply directly to the Company on a stand‑alone basis following the time at which BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are considered a top‑tier bank holding company by the Federal Reserve for capital and regulatory reporting purposes.

Liquidity Requirements

Historically, the regulation and monitoring of bank and bank holding company liquidity has been addressed as a supervisory matter, without required formulaic measures. The Basel III final framework requires banks and bank holding companies to measure their liquidity against specific liquidity tests that, although similar in some respects to liquidity measures historically applied by banks and regulators for management and supervisory purposes, going forward would be required by regulation. One test, referred to as the liquidity coverage ratio (the “LCR”), is designed to ensure that the banking entity maintains an adequate level of unencumbered high‑quality liquid assets equal to the entity’s expected net cash outflow for a 30‑day time horizon (or, if greater, 25% of its expected total cash outflow) under an acute liquidity stress scenario.

In September 2014, the federal bank regulators approved final rules implementing the LCR for advanced approaches banking organizations (i.e., banking organizations with $250 billion or more in total consolidated assets or $10 billion or more in total on‑balance sheet foreign exposure) and a modified version of the LCR for bank holding companies with at least $50 billion in total consolidated assets that are not advanced approach banking organizations.

Because BancWest was a bank holding company with greater than $50 billion in total consolidated assets prior to the Reorganization Transactions, the modified version of the LCR currently applies to the Company. Among other differences from the full LCR requirements, the modified LCR treats as net cash outflows in the denominator of the ratio only 70% of the net cash outflows as calculated under the “full” version of the rule applicable to advanced approaches banking organizations. The LCR requirements, adopted in September 2014, were phased in over a two‑year period ending January 1, 2017, with 90% compliance on January 1, 2016 and 100% compliance on January 1, 2017. We expect that the modified LCR requirements will no longer apply to the Company after its average total consolidated assets over its four previous fiscal quarters is below $50 billion.

The Basel III framework also included a second test, referred to as the net stable funding ratio (the “NSFR”), which is designed to promote more medium‑ and long‑term funding of the assets and activities of banking entities over a one‑year time horizon. The U.S. federal banking agencies have issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to implement the NSFR for banking organizations with more than $250 billion in total assets or $10 billion or more in on‑balance sheet foreign exposures and for consolidated depository institution subsidiaries of such banking organizations with more than $10 billion in assets. Under the proposed rule, the NSFR would apply beginning on January 1, 2018. A modified NSFR would apply to certain bank holding companies with more than $50 billion but less than $250 billion in assets and with less than $10 billion in on‑balance sheet foreign exposures (but not the consolidated depository institutions of such companies). Accordingly, the applicability of the NSFR, as proposed, to the Company will depend on the total assets and on‑balance sheet foreign exposures of its parent bank holding companies. The NSFR, as proposed, would not apply to the Company following the time at which BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer subject to any NSFR requirement as applied to BNPP’s other U.S. entities.

The Federal Reserve’s heightened prudential requirements for bank holding companies with $50 billion or more of consolidated total assets also include enhanced liquidity standards, as discussed above under “— Enhanced Prudential Standards.”

Prompt Corrective Action Framework

The FDIA requires the federal bank regulators to take prompt corrective action in respect of depository institutions that fail to meet specified capital requirements. The FDIA establishes five capital categories (“well‑capitalized”, “adequately capitalized”, “undercapitalized”, “significantly undercapitalized” and “critically undercapitalized”), and the federal bank regulators are required to take certain mandatory supervisory actions, and are authorized to take other discretionary actions, with respect to institutions that are undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized. The severity of these mandatory and discretionary supervisory actions depends upon the capital category in which the institution is placed. Generally, subject to a narrow exception, the FDIA requires the regulator to appoint a receiver or conservator for an institution that is critically undercapitalized.

Currently, an insured depository institution generally will be classified in the following categories based on the capital measures indicated:

An institution may be downgraded to, or deemed to be in, a capital category that is lower than indicated by its capital ratios if it is determined to be in an unsafe or unsound condition or if it receives an unsatisfactory examination rating with respect to certain matters. A bank’s capital category is determined solely for the purpose of applying prompt corrective action regulations, and the capital category may not constitute an accurate representation of the bank’s overall financial condition or prospects for other purposes.

As of December 31, 2016, the Bank was well‑capitalized with a Tier 1 capital ratio of 12.51%, total capital ratio of 13.62%, and Tier 1 leverage ratio of 8.19%, in each case calculated under the currently applicable risk‑based capital guidelines. Although the prompt corrective action provisions apply only to depository institutions and not to bank holding companies, if the provisions applied to bank holding companies, the Company would be well‑capitalized. As of December 31, 2016, the Company’s Tier 1 capital ratio was 12.75%, its total capital ratio was 13.85%, and its Tier 1 leverage ratio was 8.36%, in each case calculated under the currently applicable risk‑based capital guidelines.

As of December 31, 2016, the Company and the Bank would have reported the same capital ratios, as noted above, had the New Capital Rules been fully phased in as of the calculation date. The CET1 ratios and Tier 1 capital ratios calculated in accordance with the New Capital Rules presented is not presented in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). These ratios are calculated based on our estimates of the required adjustments under the New Capital Rules to the current regulatory‑required calculation of risk‑weighted assets and estimates of the application of provisions of the New Capital Rules to be phased in over time. Management believes these estimates are reasonable, but they may ultimately be incorrect as the Company finalizes its calculations under the New Capital Rules. For more information on these financial measures, including reconciliations to the Company and the Bank’s Tier 1 capital ratio, see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations — Capital” and “Note 13. Regulatory Capital Requirements” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements.

An institution that is categorized as undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized or critically undercapitalized is required to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan to its appropriate federal bank regulator. Under the FDIA, in order for the capital restoration plan to be accepted by the appropriate federal banking agency, a bank holding company must guarantee that a subsidiary depository institution will comply with its capital restoration plan, subject to certain limitations. The bank holding company must also provide appropriate assurances of performance. The obligation of a controlling bank holding company under the FDIA to fund a capital restoration plan is limited to the lesser of 5% of an undercapitalized subsidiary’s assets or the amount required to meet regulatory capital requirements. An undercapitalized institution is also generally prohibited from increasing its average total assets, making acquisitions, establishing any branches or engaging in any new line of business, except in accordance with an accepted capital restoration plan or with the approval of the FDIC. Institutions are also generally prohibited from making any capital distributions (including payment of a dividend) or paying any management fee to its parent holding company if the institution is or would thereafter

become undercapitalized. Institutions that are undercapitalized or significantly undercapitalized and either fail to submit an acceptable capital restoration plan or fail to implement an approved capital restoration plan may be subject to a number of requirements and restrictions, including orders to sell sufficient voting stock to become adequately capitalized, orders to elect new boards of directors, requirements to reduce total assets and cessation of receipt of deposits from correspondent banks. Critically undercapitalized institutions are subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator.

In addition, the FDIA prohibits insured depository institutions from accepting brokered deposits or offering interest rates on any deposits significantly higher than the prevailing rate in the bank’s normal market area or nationally (depending upon where the deposits are solicited), unless it is well capitalized or is adequately capitalized and receives a waiver from the FDIC. A depository institution that is adequately capitalized and that accepts brokered deposits under a waiver from the FDIC may not pay an interest rate on any deposit in excess of 75 basis points over certain prevailing market rates. The FDIA imposes no such restrictions on a bank that is well capitalized.

Safety and Soundness Standards

The FDIA requires the federal bank regulators to prescribe standards, by regulations or guidelines, relating to internal controls, information systems and internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate risk exposure, asset growth, asset quality, earnings, stock valuation and compensation, fees and benefits, and such other operational and managerial standards as the agencies deem appropriate. Guidelines adopted by the federal bank regulatory agencies establish general standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth and compensation, fees and benefits. In general, these guidelines require, among other things, appropriate systems and practices to identify and manage the risk and exposures specified in the guidelines. These guidelines also prohibit excessive compensation as an unsafe and unsound practice and describe compensation as excessive when the amounts paid are unreasonable or disproportionate to the services performed by an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder. In addition, the agencies adopted regulations that authorize, but do not require, an agency to order an institution that has been given notice by an agency that it is not satisfying any of such safety and soundness standards to submit a compliance plan. If, after being so notified, an institution fails to submit an acceptable compliance plan or fails in any material respect to implement an acceptable compliance plan, the bank regulator must issue an order directing action to correct the deficiency and may issue an order directing other actions of the types to which an undercapitalized institution may be subject under the FDIA. See “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework”. If an institution fails to comply with such an order, the bank regulator may seek to enforce such order in judicial proceedings and to impose civil money penalties.

Deposit Insurance

FDIC Insurance Assessments.  As an FDIC‑insured bank, FHB must pay deposit insurance assessments to the FDIC based on its average total assets minus its average tangible equity. For institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, such as FHB, the FDIC uses a performance score and a loss‑severity score that are used to calculate an initial assessment rate. In calculating these scores, the FDIC uses a bank’s capital level and supervisory ratings and certain financial measures to assess an institution’s ability to withstand asset‑related stress and funding‑related stress. The FDIC also has the ability to make discretionary adjustments to the total score based upon significant risk factors that are not adequately captured in the calculations. In addition to ordinary assessments described above, the FDIC has the ability to impose special assessments in certain instances.

The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is currently underfunded, and the FDIC has raised assessment rates and imposed special assessments on certain institutions during recent years to raise funds. The FDIA establishes a minimum ratio of deposit insurance reserves to estimated insured deposits, the designated reserve ratio, of 1.15% prior to September 2020 and 1.35% thereafter. In October 2010, the FDIC adopted a restoration plan to ensure that the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.35% and, on March 15, 2016, the FDIC issued a final rule to implement this restoration plan. Under the final rule, the assessment schedule for all banks will decrease by 0.02% or more beginning in the quarter after the fund reserve ratio reaches 1.15%. Thereafter, banks with more than $10 billion in total assets will be required to pay “surcharge assessments” at an annual rate of 0.045% to bring the fund’s reserve ratio to 1.35% by the end of 2018. If the fund’s reserve ratio does not reach 1.35% by the end of 2018, the FDIC will impose a one‑time special assessment in the first quarter of 2019. The FDIC will, at least semi‑annually, update its income and loss projections for the Deposit Insurance Fund and, if necessary, propose rules to further increase assessment rates.

In addition, on January 12, 2010, the FDIC announced that it would seek public comment on whether banks with compensation plans that encourage risky behavior should be charged higher deposit assessment rates than such banks would otherwise be charged. Comments were due February 18, 2010. As of December 2016, no rule has been adopted.

Under the FDIA, the FDIC may terminate deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution has engaged in unsafe and unsound practices, is in an unsafe or unsound condition to continue operations, or has violated any applicable law, regulation, rule, order or condition imposed by the FDIC.

Other Assessments.  In addition, the Deposit Insurance Funds Act of 1996 authorized the Financing Corporation to impose assessments on deposit insurance fund applicable deposits in order to service the interest on the Financing Corporation’s bond obligations from deposit insurance fund assessments. The amount assessed on individual institutions is in addition to the amount, if any, paid for deposit insurance according to the FDIC’s risk‑related assessment rate schedules. Assessment rates may be adjusted quarterly to reflect changes in the assessment base.

The Volcker Rule

The Dodd‑Frank Act generally prohibits banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds (the “Volcker Rule”). In December 2013, federal regulators adopted final rules to implement the Volcker Rule. The Volcker Rule has not had a material effect on the Company’s operations, as the Company does not have any significant engagement in the businesses prohibited by the Volcker Rule. The Company has incurred costs to adopt additional policies and systems to ensure compliance with the Volcker Rule, but such costs have not been material.

Depositor Preference

Under federal law, depositors (including the FDIC with respect to the subrogated claims of insured depositors) and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as receiver would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver.

Consumer Financial Protection

The Company is subject to a number of federal and state consumer protection laws that extensively govern the Company’s relationship with its customers. These laws include, but are not limited to, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Truth in Savings Act, the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, the Expedited Funds Availability Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Service Members Civil Relief Act and these laws’ respective state‑law counterparts, as well as state usury laws and laws regarding unfair and deceptive acts and practices. These and other federal and state laws require, among other things, disclosures of the cost of credit and terms of deposit accounts, provide substantive consumer rights, prohibit discrimination in credit transactions, regulate the use of credit report information, provide financial privacy protections, prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive practices and subject the Company to substantial regulatory oversight. Violations of applicable consumer protection laws can result in significant potential liability from litigation brought by customers, including actual damages, restitution and attorneys’ fees. Federal bank regulators, state attorneys general and state and local consumer protection agencies may also seek to enforce consumer protection requirements and obtain these and other remedies, including regulatory sanctions, customer rescission rights, action by the state and local attorneys general in each jurisdiction in which the Company operates and civil money penalties. Failure to comply with consumer protection requirements may also result in the failure to obtain any required bank regulatory approval for merger or acquisition transactions the Company may wish to pursue or the Company’s prohibition from engaging in such transactions even if approval is not required.

The Dodd‑Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency, the CFPB, which was granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB is also authorized to engage in consumer financial education, track consumer complaints, request data and promote the availability of financial services to underserved consumers and communities. The CFPB has examination and enforcement authority over banks with assets of $10 billion or more, as well as their affiliates.

The consumer protection provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act and the examination, supervision and enforcement of those laws and implementing regulations by the CFPB have created a more intense and complex environment for consumer

finance regulation. The CFPB has significant authority to implement and enforce federal consumer finance laws, including the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and new requirements for financial services products provided for in the Dodd‑Frank Act, as well as the authority to identify and prohibit unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices. The Dodd‑Frank Act authorizes the CFPB to establish certain minimum standards for the origination of residential mortgages including a determination of the borrower’s ability to repay. In addition, the Dodd‑Frank Act allows borrowers to raise certain defenses to foreclosure if they receive any loan other than a “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB.

The CFPB has finalized a number of significant rules which impact nearly every aspect of the lifecycle of a residential mortgage loan. These rules implement the Dodd‑Frank Act amendments to the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. Among other things, the rules adopted by the CFPB require banks to: (i) develop and implement procedures to ensure compliance with a “reasonable ability to repay” test and identify whether a loan meets a new definition for a “qualified mortgage”, in which case a rebuttable presumption exists that the creditor extending the loan has satisfied the reasonable ability to repay test; (ii) implement new or revised disclosures, policies and procedures for originating and servicing mortgages including, but not limited to, integrated loans estimate and closing disclosures, pre‑loan counseling, early intervention with delinquent borrowers and specific loss mitigation procedures for loans secured by a borrower’s principal residence; (iii) comply with additional restrictions on mortgage loan originator hiring and compensation; (iv) comply with new disclosure requirements and standards for appraisals and certain financial products; and (v) maintain escrow accounts for higher‑priced mortgage loans for a longer period of time. The Company is continuing to analyze the impact that such rules may have on its business.

The review of products and practices to prevent unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices is a continuing focus of the CFPB, and of banking regulators more broadly. The ultimate impact of this heightened scrutiny is uncertain but could result in changes to pricing, practices, products and procedures. It could also result in increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination, additional remediation efforts and possible penalties. In addition, the Dodd‑Frank Act provides the CFPB with broad supervisory, examination and enforcement authority over various consumer financial products and services, including the ability to require reimbursements and other payments to customers for alleged legal violations and to impose significant penalties, as well as injunctive relief that prohibits lenders from engaging in allegedly unlawful practices. The CFPB also has the authority to obtain cease and desist orders providing for affirmative relief or monetary penalties. The Dodd‑Frank Act does not prevent states from adopting stricter consumer protection standards. State regulation of financial products and potential enforcement actions could also adversely affect the Company’s business, financial condition or results of operations.

Community Reinvestment Act of 1977

Under the CRA, the Bank has an obligation, consistent with safe and sound operations, to help meet the credit needs of the market areas where it operates, which include low‑ and moderate‑income individuals and communities. In connection with its examination of the Bank, the FDIC is required to assess the Bank’s CRA performance in the areas of lending, investments and services. FHB’s CRA performance could, among other things, result in the denial or delay in certain corporate applications filed by the Parent or the Bank, including applications for branch openings or relocations and applications to acquire, merge or consolidate with another banking institution or holding company. FHB received a rating of “Outstanding” in its most recently completed CRA examination.

Financial Privacy

The federal bank regulators have adopted rules limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose non‑public information about consumers to unaffiliated third parties. These limitations require disclosure of privacy policies to consumers and, in some circumstances, allow consumers to prevent disclosure of certain personal information to a nonaffiliated third party. These regulations affect how consumer information is transmitted through diversified financial companies and conveyed to outside vendors. In addition, consumers may also prevent disclosure of certain information among affiliated companies that is assembled or used to determine eligibility for a product or service, such as that shown on consumer credit reports and asset and income information from applications. Consumers also have the option to direct banks and other financial institutions not to share information about transactions and experiences with affiliated companies for the purpose of marketing products or services.

Anti‑Money Laundering and the USA PATRIOT ACT

A major focus of governmental policy on financial institutions in recent years has been aimed at combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 substantially broadened the scope of U.S. anti‑money laundering laws and regulations by imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, creating new crimes and penalties and expanding the extra‑territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Financial institutions are also prohibited from entering into specified financial transactions and account relationships and must use enhanced due diligence procedures in their dealings with certain types of high‑risk customers and implement a written customer identification program. Financial institutions must take certain steps to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and report certain types of suspicious transactions. Regulatory authorities routinely examine financial institutions for compliance with these obligations, and failure of a financial institution to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing, or to comply with all of the relevant laws or regulations, could have serious legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these obligations.

Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) Regulation

The U.S. Treasury Department’s OFAC administers and enforces economic and trade sanctions against targeted foreign countries and regimes, under authority of various laws, including designated foreign countries, nationals and others. OFAC publishes lists of specially designated targets and countries. The Company and the Bank are responsible for, among other things, blocking accounts of, and transactions with, such targets and countries, prohibiting unlicensed trade and financial transactions with them and reporting blocked transactions after their occurrence. Failure to comply with these sanctions could have serious legal and reputational consequences, including causing applicable bank regulatory authorities not to approve merger or acquisition transactions when regulatory approval is required or to prohibit such transactions even if approval is not required.

Incentive Compensation

The Dodd‑Frank Act requires the federal bank regulators and the SEC to establish joint regulations or guidelines prohibiting incentive‑based payment arrangements at specified regulated entities, including the Company and the Bank, having at least $1 billion in total assets that encourage inappropriate risks by providing an executive officer, employee, director or principal stockholder with excessive compensation, fees or benefits or that could lead to material financial loss to the entity. In addition, these regulators must establish regulations or guidelines requiring enhanced disclosure to regulators of incentive‑based compensation arrangements. The agencies proposed such regulations initially in April 2011 and again in April and May 2016, but the regulations have not been finalized. If the regulations are adopted in the form proposed, they may impose limitations on the manner in which the Company structures its compensation for certain individuals.

In June 2010, the Federal Reserve and FDIC issued comprehensive final guidance on incentive compensation policies intended to ensure that the incentive compensation policies of banking organizations do not undermine the safety and soundness of such organizations by encouraging excessive risk‑taking. The guidance, which covers all employees that have the ability to materially affect the risk profile of an organization, either individually or as part of a group, is based upon the key principles that a banking organization’s incentive compensation arrangements should (i) provide incentives that appropriately balance risk and financial results in a manner that does not encourage employees to expose their organizations to imprudent risk, (ii) be compatible with effective internal controls and risk management and (iii) be supported by strong corporate governance, including active and effective oversight by the organization’s board of directors. These three principles are incorporated into the proposed joint compensation regulations under the Dodd‑Frank Act, discussed above.

The Federal Reserve will review, as part of the regular, risk‑focused examination process, the incentive compensation arrangements of banking organizations, such as the Company, that are not “large, complex banking organizations.” These reviews will be tailored to each organization based on the scope and complexity of the organization’s activities and the prevalence of incentive compensation arrangements. The findings of the supervisory initiatives will be included in reports of examination. Deficiencies will be incorporated into the organization’s supervisory ratings, which can affect the organization’s ability to make acquisitions and take other actions. Enforcement actions may be taken against

a banking organization if its incentive compensation arrangements, or related risk management control or governance processes, pose a risk to the organization’s safety and soundness and the organization is not taking prompt and effective measures to correct the deficiencies.

Future Legislation and Regulation

Congress may enact, modify or repeal legislation from time to time that affects the regulation of the financial services industry, and state legislatures may enact, modify or repeal legislation from time to time affecting the regulation of financial institutions chartered by or operating in those states. Federal and state regulatory agencies also periodically propose and adopt changes to their regulations or change the manner in which existing regulations are applied. The substance or impact of pending or future legislation or regulation, or the application thereof, cannot be predicted, although enactment of proposed legislation, or modification or repeal of existing legislation, could impact the regulatory structure under which the Company operates and may significantly increase its costs, impede the efficiency of its internal business processes, require the Company to increase its regulatory capital and modify its business strategy, and limit its ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner. The Company’s business, financial condition, results of operations or prospects may be adversely affected, perhaps materially, as a result.

ITEM 1A.  RISK FACTORS

 

Ownership of our common stock involves a significant degree of risk and uncertainty. The material risks and uncertainties that management believes affect us are described below. Any of the following risks, as well as risks that we do not know or currently deem immaterial, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. To the extent that any of the information in this Form 10-K constitutes forward‑looking statements, the risk factors below are cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward‑looking statements made by us or on our behalf. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Cautionary Note Regarding Forward‑Looking Statements.”

 

Risks Related to Our Business

 

Geographic concentration in our existing markets may unfavorably impact our operations.

 

A substantial majority of our business is with customers located within Hawaii. Our operations are heavily concentrated in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan with the exception of our auto dealer flooring and certain other limited lending services outside Hawaii, Guam and Saipan, which services represent 21% of our total loan and lease portfolio as of December 31, 2016. As a result of this geographic concentration, our results depend largely on economic conditions in these and surrounding areas. As discussed below, deterioration in economic conditions in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our business may be adversely affected by conditions in the financial markets and economic conditions generally and in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan in particular.

 

We provide banking and financial services to customers primarily in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. Our financial performance generally, and the ability of our borrowers to pay interest on and repay principal of outstanding loans and the value of collateral securing those loans in particular, as well as demand for loans and other products and services we offer, is highly dependent upon the business environment in the markets in which we operate. Economic conditions in our markets depend mainly on tourism, U.S. military and defense products and services, real estate, government and other service‑based industries. Declines in tourism, fluctuations in the strength of currencies such as the U.S. dollar and the Japanese yen, the inability of the Hawaii economy to absorb continuing construction expansion, continued higher levels of underemployment compared to pre‑recession levels, increases in energy costs, the availability of affordable air transportation, real or threatened acts of war or terrorism, adverse weather, pandemics, natural disasters and local budget issues, among other factors, may impact consumer and corporate spending. As a result, these events may contribute to a deterioration in Hawaii’s general economic condition, which, as a result of our geographic concentration, could adversely impact us and our borrowers.

 

Commercial lending represents approximately 54% of our total loan and lease portfolio as of December 31, 2016, and we generally make loans to small to mid‑sized businesses whose success depends on the regional economy. These businesses generally have fewer financial resources in terms of capital or borrowing capacity than larger entities and may expose us to greater credit risks. We also engage in mortgage lending and automobile financing, as well as other forms of consumer lending. Adverse economic and business conditions in our market areas could reduce our growth rate, affect our borrowers’ ability to repay their loans and, consequently, adversely affect our financial condition and performance.

 

The U.S. military has a major presence in Hawaii and Guam and, as a result, is an important aspect of the economies in which we operate. The funding of the U.S. military occurs as part of the overall U.S. government budget and appropriation process which is driven by numerous factors, including geo‑political events, macroeconomic conditions and the ability of the U.S. government to enact legislation such as appropriations bills. There have been lower levels of federal government expenditures in Hawaii since the budget sequestration took effect in March 2013. Further cuts in defense and other security spending could have an adverse impact on the economy in our markets. While the new U.S. administration appears to favor an increase in military spending, it remains unclear whether any increase would match or exceed pre-sequester funding levels.

 

Other economic conditions that affect our financial performance include short‑term and long‑term interest rates, the prevailing yield curve, inflation and price levels (particularly for real estate), monetary policy, unemployment and the strength of the domestic economy as a whole. Unfavorable market conditions can result in a deterioration in the credit quality of our borrowers and the demand for our products and services, an increase in the number of loan delinquencies, defaults and charge‑offs, additional provisions for loan losses, adverse asset values and an overall material adverse effect on the quality of our loan portfolio. Unfavorable or uncertain economic and market conditions can be caused by declines in economic growth, business activity or investor or business confidence, limitations on the availability or increases in the cost of credit and capital, increases in inflation or interest rates, high unemployment, natural disasters or a combination of these or other factors.

 

Our business is significantly dependent on the real estate markets in which we operate, as a significant percentage of our loan portfolio is secured by real estate.

 

As of December 31, 2016, our real estate loans represented approximately $6.6 billion, or 57% of our total loan and lease portfolio. Our real estate loans consist primarily of commercial and construction loans (representing 24% of our total loan and lease portfolio) and residential loans including home equity loans (representing 33% of our total loan and lease portfolio), with the significant majority of these loans concentrated in Hawaii. Real property values in Hawaii may be affected by a variety of factors outside of our control and the control of our borrowers, including national and local economic conditions generally. Declines in real property prices, including prices for homes and commercial properties, in Hawaii, Guam or Saipan could result in a deterioration of the credit quality of our borrowers, an increase in the number of loan delinquencies, defaults and charge‑offs, and reduced demand for our products and services generally. Our commercial real estate loans may have a greater risk of loss than residential mortgage loans, in part because these loans are generally larger or more complex to underwrite and are characterized by having a limited supply of real estate at commercially attractive locations, long delivery time frames for development and high interest rate sensitivity. In addition, nearly all residential mortgage loans and home equity lines of credit and loans outstanding are for residences located in Hawaii, Guam or Saipan. These island locales are susceptible to a wide array of potential natural disasters including, but not limited to, hurricanes, floods, tsunamis and earthquakes. Finally, declines in real property values in Hawaii could reduce the value of any collateral we realize following a default on these loans and could adversely affect our ability to continue to grow our loan portfolio consistent with our underwriting standards. Our failure to mitigate these risks effectively could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Concentrated exposures to certain asset classes and individual obligors may unfavorably impact our operations.

 

We have naturally developed concentrated exposures to those asset classes and industries in which we have specific knowledge or competency, such as commercial real estate lending and dealer financing, which represented 20% and 7% of our total lending commitments, respectively, as of December 31, 2016. In management’s judgment, our extensive experience within these concentration areas, and our strategic relationships within such areas, allows us to better evaluate the associated risks and price credit accordingly. However, the presence of similar exposures concentrated in certain asset classes leaves us exposed to the risk of a focused downturn within a concentration area. Additionally, we have cultivated relationships with market leaders that result in relatively larger exposures to select single obligors than would be typical for an institution of our size in a larger operating market. For example, our top five dealer relationships

represented approximately 34% of our outstanding dealer flooring commitments as of December 31, 2016. The failure to properly anticipate and address risks associated with these concentrated exposures could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our business is subject to interest rate risk and fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings.

 

Fluctuations in interest rates may negatively impact our banking business and may weaken demand for some of our products. Our earnings and cash flows are largely dependent on net interest income, which is the difference between the interest income we receive from interest‑earning assets (e.g., loans and investment securities) and the interest expense we pay on interest‑bearing liabilities (e.g., deposits and borrowings). The level of net interest income is primarily a function of the average balance of interest‑earning assets, the average balance of interest‑bearing liabilities and the spread between the yield on such assets and the cost of such liabilities. These factors are influenced by both the pricing and mix of interest‑earning assets and interest‑bearing liabilities. Interest rates are volatile and highly sensitive to many factors that are beyond our control, such as economic conditions and policies of various governmental and regulatory agencies, and, in particular the monetary policy of the Federal Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve System (the “FOMC”). In recent years, it has been the policy of the FOMC and the U.S. Treasury Department to maintain interest rates at historically low levels through a targeted federal funds rate and the purchase of U.S. Treasury and mortgage‑backed securities. As a result, yields on securities we have purchased, and market rates on the loans we have originated, have been at levels lower than were available prior to 2008. Consequently, the average yield on our interest‑earning assets has decreased during the current low interest rate environment. If a low interest rate environment persists, our net interest income may further decrease. This would be the case because our ability to lower our interest expense has been limited at these interest rate levels, while the average yield on our interest‑earning assets has continued to decrease.

 

In December 2016, the FOMC raised short term interest rates by 25 basis points and indicated that it expects to raise interest rates further in 2017. In the event that interest rates continue to increase, if our variable rate interest‑earning assets do not reprice faster than our interest‑bearing liabilities in a rising rate environment, our net interest income could be adversely affected. If our net interest income decreases, this could have an adverse effect on our profitability, including the value of our investments.

 

Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, could influence not only the interest we receive on loans and securities and the amount of interest we pay on deposits and borrowings, but also our ability to originate loans and deposits. Changes in interest rates also have a significant impact on the carrying value of certain assets, including loans, real estate and investment securities, on our balance sheet. We may incur debt in the future and that debt may also be sensitive to interest rates.

 

The cost of our deposits is largely based on short‑term interest rates, the level of which is driven primarily by the FOMC’s actions. However, the yields generated by our loans and securities are often difficult to re‑price and are typically driven by longer‑term interest rates, which are set by the market or, at times, the FOMC’s actions, and vary over time. The level of net interest income is therefore influenced by movements in such interest rates and the pace at which such movements occur. If the interest rates paid on our deposits and other borrowings increase at a faster pace than the interest rates on our loans and other investments, our net interest income may decline and, with it, a decline in our earnings may occur. Our net interest income and earnings would be similarly affected if the interest rates on our interest‑earning assets declined at a faster pace than the interest rates on our deposits and other borrowings. Any substantial, unexpected, prolonged change in market interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Changes in interest rates can also affect the level of loan refinancing activity, which impacts the amount of prepayment penalty income we receive on loans we hold. Because prepayment penalties are recorded as interest income when received, the extent to which they increase or decrease during any given period could have a significant impact on the level of net interest income and net income we generate during that time. A decrease in our prepayment penalty income resulting from any change in interest rates or as a result of regulatory limitations on our ability to charge prepayment penalties could therefore adversely affect our net interest income, net income or results of operations.

 

Changes in interest rates can also affect the slope of the yield curve. A decline in the current yield curve or a flatter or inverted yield curve could cause our net interest income and net interest margin to contract, which could have a material adverse effect on our net income and cash flows, as well as the value of our assets. An inverted yield curve may also adversely affect the yield on investment securities by increasing the prepayment risk of any securities purchased at a premium.

 

As of December 31, 2016, we had $6.0 billion of noninterest‑bearing demand deposits and $10.8 billion of interest‑bearing deposits. The prohibition restricting depository institutions from paying interest on demand deposits, such as checking accounts, was repealed effective on July 21, 2011 as part of the Dodd‑Frank Act. Current interest rates for interest bearing checking accounts are very low because of current market conditions and, so far, the impact of the repeal has not been significant to us. However, we do not know what market rates will eventually be and, therefore, we cannot estimate at this time the long‑term impact of the repeal on our interest expense on deposits. If we need to offer higher interest rates on checking accounts to maintain current clients or attract new clients, our interest expense will increase, perhaps materially. Furthermore, if we fail to offer interest in a sufficient amount to keep these demand deposits, our core deposits may be reduced, which would require us to obtain funding in other ways or risk slowing our future asset growth.

 

Our business, profitability and liquidity may be adversely affected by deterioration in the credit quality of, or defaults by, third parties who owe us money, securities or other assets or whose securities or obligations we hold.

 

A number of our products expose us to credit risk. We are exposed to the risk that third parties that owe us money, securities or other assets will not perform their obligations. These parties may default on their obligations to us due to bankruptcy, lack of liquidity, operational failure or other reasons. A failure of a significant market participant, or even concerns about a default by such an institution, could lead to significant liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions, which in turn could adversely affect us.

 

We are also subject to the risk that our rights against third parties may not be enforceable in all circumstances. In addition, deterioration in the credit quality of third parties whose securities or obligations we hold, including a deterioration in the value of collateral posted by third parties to secure their obligations to us under derivatives contracts and loan agreements, could result in losses and/or adversely affect our ability to rehypothecate or otherwise use those securities or obligations for liquidity purposes.

 

We might underestimate the credit losses inherent in our loan and lease portfolio and have credit losses in excess of the amount we reserve for loan and lease losses.

 

Because the credit quality of our loan and lease portfolio can have a significant impact on our earnings, the operation of our business requires us to manage credit risk. As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our borrowers will be unable to repay their loans according to their terms, and that the collateral securing repayment of the loans we extend, if any, may not be sufficient to ensure repayment. In addition, there are risks inherent in making any loan, including risks with respect to the period of time over which the loan may be repaid, risks relating to proper loan underwriting, risks resulting from changes in economic and industry conditions and risks inherent in dealing with individual borrowers, including the risk that a borrower may not provide information to us about its business in a timely manner and/or may present inaccurate or incomplete information to us, and risks relating to the value of collateral.

 

We maintain an allowance for loan and lease losses (the “Allowance”), which is a reserve established through a provision for loan and lease losses (the “Provision”) charged to expense representing management’s best estimate of probable losses that have been incurred within our existing portfolio of loans and leases. The Allowance, in the judgment of management, is necessary to reserve for estimated loan and lease losses and risks inherent in our loan and lease portfolio. The level of the Allowance reflects management’s continuing evaluation of specific credit risks, the quality of the loan and lease portfolio, the value of the underlying collateral, the level of non‑accruing loans and leases, incurred losses inherent in the current loan and lease portfolio, and economic, political and regulatory conditions.

 

For our commercial loans, we perform an internal loan review and grade loans on an ongoing basis, and we estimate and establish reserves for credit risks and credit losses inherent in our credit exposure (including unfunded lending commitments). The objective of our loan review and grading procedures is to identify existing or emerging credit quality problems so that appropriate steps can be initiated to avoid or minimize future losses. This process, which is critical to our financial results and condition, requires difficult, subjective and complex judgments of loan collectability. As is the case

with any such assessments, there is always the chance that we will fail to identify the proper factors or that we will fail to accurately estimate the impacts of factors that we do identify.

 

Although our management has established an Allowance it believes is adequate to absorb probable and reasonably estimable losses in our loan and lease portfolio, it may not be adequate. We could sustain credit losses that are significantly higher than the amount of our Allowance. Higher credit losses could arise for a variety of reasons, such as growth in our loan and lease portfolio, changes in economic conditions affecting borrowers, new information regarding our loans and leases and other factors within and outside our control. If real estate values were to decline or if economic conditions in our markets were to deteriorate unexpectedly, additional loan and lease losses not incorporated in the existing Allowance might occur. Losses in excess of the existing Allowance will reduce our net income and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. A severe downturn in the economy generally, in our markets specifically or affecting the business and assets of individual customers would generate increased charge‑offs and a need for higher reserves. While we believe that our Allowance for credit losses was adequate as of December 31, 2016, there is no assurance that it will be sufficient to cover all incurred credit losses. In the event of significant deterioration in economic conditions, we may be required to increase reserves in future periods, which would reduce our earnings.

 

In addition, bank regulatory agencies will periodically review our Allowance and the value attributed to non‑accrual loans and leases or to real estate we acquire through foreclosure. Such regulatory agencies may require us to adjust our determination of the value for these items, increase our Allowance or reduce the carrying value of owned real estate, reducing our net income. Further, if charge‑offs in future periods exceed the Allowance, we may need additional adjustments to increase the Allowance. These adjustments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our ability to maintain, attract and retain customer relationships is highly dependent on our reputation.

 

As the parent company of Hawaii’s oldest and largest bank, we rely in part on the reputation of our bank for superior financial services to retain our customer relationships. Damage to our reputation could undermine the confidence of our current and potential customers in our ability to provide high‑quality financial services. Such damage could also impair the confidence of our counterparties and vendors and ultimately affect our ability to effect transactions. Maintenance of our reputation depends not only on our success in maintaining our service‑focused culture and controlling and mitigating the various risks described in this Form 10-K, but also on our success in identifying and appropriately addressing issues that may arise in areas such as potential conflicts of interest, anti‑money laundering, customer personal information and privacy issues, customer and other third party fraud, record‑keeping, regulatory investigations and any litigation that may arise from the failure or perceived failure of us to comply with legal and regulatory requirements. Maintaining our reputation also depends on our ability to successfully prevent third parties from infringing on the “First Hawaiian Bank” brand and associated trademarks and our other intellectual property. Defense of our reputation, trademarks and other intellectual property, including through litigation, could result in costs that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

The value of the investment securities we own may decline in the future.

 

As of December 31, 2016, we owned $5.1 billion of investment securities, which largely consisted of our positions in obligations of the U.S. government and government‑sponsored enterprises. We evaluate our investment securities on at least a quarterly basis, and more frequently when economic and market conditions warrant such an evaluation, to determine whether any decline in fair value below amortized cost is the result of an other‑than‑temporary impairment. The process for determining whether impairment is other‑than‑temporary usually requires complex, subjective judgments about the future financial performance of the issuer in order to assess the probability of receiving all contractual principal and interest payments on the security. Because of changing economic and market conditions affecting issuers, we may be required to recognize other‑than‑temporary impairment in future periods, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition.

 

Loss of deposits could increase our funding costs.

 

Like many banking companies, we rely on customer deposits to meet a considerable portion of our funding, and we continue to seek customer deposits to maintain this funding base. We accept deposits directly from consumer and commercial customers and, as of December 31, 2016, we had $16.8 billion in deposits. Although we hold the largest share of the deposit market in Hawaii, these deposits are subject to potentially dramatic fluctuations in availability or price due to certain factors outside our control, such as a loss of confidence by customers in us or the banking sector generally, customer perceptions of our financial health and general reputation, increasing competitive pressures from other financial services firms for consumer or corporate customer deposits, changes in interest rates and returns on other investment classes, which could result in significant outflows of deposits within short periods of time or significant changes in pricing necessary to maintain current customer deposits or attract additional deposits.

 

Our liquidity is dependent on dividends from First Hawaiian Bank.

 

We are a legal entity separate and distinct from our banking and other subsidiaries. Virtually all of our cash flow, including cash flow to pay dividends on our equity and principal and interest on any debt we may incur, is dividends from the Bank. Various federal and state laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends that our bank may pay to us. For example, Hawaii law only permits our bank to pay dividends out of retained earnings as defined under Hawaii banking law, which differs from retained earnings calculated under GAAP. Also, our right to participate in a distribution of assets upon a subsidiary’s liquidation or reorganization is subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary’s creditors. In the event our bank is unable to pay dividends to us, we may not be able to service any debt we may incur, pay obligations or pay dividends on our common stock. The inability to receive dividends from our bank could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Severe weather, hurricanes, tsunamis, natural disasters, pandemics, acts of war or terrorism or other external events could significantly impact our business.

 

Severe weather, hurricanes, tsunamis, natural disasters, widespread disease or pandemics, acts of war or terrorism or other adverse external events could have a significant impact on our ability to conduct business. In addition, such events could affect the stability of our deposit base, impair the ability of borrowers to repay outstanding loans, impair the value of collateral securing loans, cause significant property damage, result in loss of revenue or cause us to incur additional expenses. Because Hawaii’s economy is heavily dependent on the tourism industry, which is in turn heavily influenced by the affordability and desirability of air travel and the prevailing weather patterns in the region, we could be disproportionally affected relative to others in the case of external events such as acts of war or terrorism, severe weather, natural disasters or pandemics. The occurrence of any of these events in the future could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We own the building in Honolulu in which our principal office and headquarters are located. The building is the tallest building in downtown Honolulu and a prominent architectural landmark. We lease space in the building to a number of other businesses and, for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively, the leases in our headquarters generated $3.3 million, or approximately 1.5%, and $2.9 million, or approximately 1.4%, of our net income, respectively. In addition, as of December 31, 2016, over 600, or a quarter of our employees work in our principal office. Given that we derive a portion of our income from leasing space in our principal office building and that the largest concentration of our employees is located in our principal office building, depending on the intensity and longevity of the event, a catastrophic event impacting our Honolulu office building, including a terrorist attack, extreme weather event or other hostile or catastrophic event, could negatively affect our business and reputation. In addition to the impact this would have on our ability to service and interact with our clients, we may also lose the rental income we derive from tenants that occupy our Honolulu office building. Further, the value of our Honolulu office building, which accounted for approximately 43.8% of the net book value of our total premises and equipment, or $131.7 million, as of December 31, 2016, could significantly depreciate if such a catastrophic event were to occur. A significant event impacting our principal office building could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may not be able to maintain consistent growth, earnings or profitability.

 

Although the Bank has experienced five consecutive years of economic expansion, there can be no assurance that we will be able to continue to grow and to remain profitable in future periods, or, if profitable, that our overall earnings will remain consistent or increase in the future. Sustainable growth requires that we manage our risks by following prudent loan underwriting standards, balancing loan and deposit growth without increasing interest rate risk or compressing our net interest margin, maintaining more than adequate capital at all times, hiring and retaining qualified employees and successfully implementing strategic projects and initiatives. Our earnings may also be reduced by increased expenses associated with increased assets, such as additional employee compensation expense, and increased interest expense on any liabilities incurred or deposits solicited to fund increases in assets.

 

Continued, long‑term growth may be unsustainable, given the concentration of our operations and customer base in Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. Moreover, under applicable laws, we may not be permitted to acquire any bank in Hawaii because we control more than 30% of the total amount of deposits in the Hawaii market. As a result, any further growth in the Hawaii market will most likely have to occur organically rather than by acquisition. Our inability to manage our growth successfully or to continue to expand into new markets could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may not be able to attract and retain key personnel and other skilled employees.

 

Our success depends, in large part, on the skills of our management team and our ability to retain, recruit and motivate key officers and employees. Competition for qualified employees and personnel in the banking industry is intense and there is a limited number of qualified persons with knowledge of, and experience in, the regional banking industry, especially in the communities served by our branch network. A substantial number of our employees have considerable tenure with the Bank and some will be nearing retirement in the next few years, which makes succession planning important to the continued operation of our business. We need to continue to attract and retain key personnel and to recruit qualified individuals to succeed existing key personnel to ensure the continued growth and successful operation of our business. Leadership changes will occur from time to time, and we cannot predict whether significant retirements or resignations will occur or whether we will be able to recruit additional qualified personnel. Competition for senior executives and skilled personnel in the financial services and banking industry is intense, which means the cost of hiring, incentivizing and retaining skilled personnel may continue to increase, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, our ability to effectively compete for senior executives and other qualified personnel by offering competitive compensation and benefit arrangements may be restricted by applicable banking laws and regulations, including compensation restrictions applicable to us while we are a controlled subsidiary of BNPP and restrictions recently proposed for adoption by U.S. regulatory agencies, including the Federal Reserve and FDIC. The loss of the services of any senior executive or other key personnel, the inability to recruit and retain qualified personnel in the future or the failure to develop and implement a viable succession plan, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We operate in a highly competitive industry and market area.

 

We operate in the highly competitive financial services industry and face significant competition for customers from financial institutions located both within and beyond our principal markets. We compete with commercial banks, savings banks, credit unions, non‑bank financial services companies and other financial institutions operating within or near the areas we serve. Additionally, certain large banks headquartered on the U.S. mainland and large community banking institutions target the same customers we do. In addition, as customer preferences and expectations continue to evolve, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for banks to expand their geographic reach by providing services over the Internet and for non‑banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. The banking industry is experiencing rapid changes in technology, and, as a result, our future success will depend in part on our ability to address our customers’ needs by using technology. Customer loyalty can be influenced by a competitor’s new products, especially offerings that could provide cost savings or a higher return to the customer. Increased lending activity of competing banks following the Great Recession (which we define as January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009) has also led to increased competitive pressures on loan rates and terms for high‑quality credits. We may not be able to compete successfully with other financial institutions in our markets, and we may have to pay higher interest rates to attract deposits, accept lower yields to attract loans and pay higher wages for new employees, resulting in lower net interest margins and reduced profitability.

 

Many of our non‑bank competitors are not subject to the same extensive regulations that govern our activities and may have greater flexibility in competing for business. The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. In addition, some of our current commercial banking customers may seek alternative banking sources as they develop needs for credit facilities larger than we may be able to accommodate. Our inability to compete successfully in the markets in which we operate could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

New lines of business, products, product enhancements or services may subject us to additional risks.

 

From time to time, we may implement new lines of business or offer new products and product enhancements as well as new services within our existing lines of business. There are substantial risks and uncertainties associated with these efforts, particularly in instances where the markets are not fully developed. In implementing, developing or marketing new lines of business, products, product enhancements or services, we may invest significant time and resources, although we may not assign the appropriate level of resources or expertise necessary to make these new lines of business, products, product enhancements or services successful or to realize their expected benefits. Further, initial timetables for the introduction and development of new lines of business, products, product enhancements or services may not be achieved, and price and profitability targets may not prove feasible. External factors, such as compliance with regulations, competitive alternatives and shifting market preferences, may also impact the ultimate implementation of a new line of business or offerings of new products, product enhancements or services. Furthermore, any new line of business, product, product enhancement or service could have a significant impact on the effectiveness of our system of internal controls. Additionally, until BNPP ceases to directly or indirectly beneficially own at least 25% of our outstanding common stock, any material change to the scope of our business must also be approved by a majority of our directors designated for nomination and election by BNPP pursuant to the Stockholder Agreement we entered into with BNPP in connection with our IPO, and BNPP‑designated directors may not approve changes to the scope of our business even though other directors believe such changes may be beneficial to us or our other stockholders. See “— Risks Related to Our Controlling Stockholder.” Failure to successfully manage these risks in the development and implementation of new lines of business or offerings of new products, product enhancements or services could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

If our techniques for managing risk are ineffective, we may be exposed to material unanticipated losses.

 

In order to manage the significant risks inherent in our business, we must maintain effective policies, procedures and systems that enable us to identify, monitor and control our exposure to material risks, such as credit, operational, legal and reputational risks. Our risk management methods may prove to be ineffective due to their design, their implementation or the degree to which we adhere to them, or as a result of the lack of adequate, accurate or timely information or otherwise. If our risk management efforts are ineffective, we could suffer losses that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we could be subject to litigation, particularly from our customers, and sanctions or fines from regulators. Our techniques for managing the risks we face may not fully mitigate the risk exposure in all economic or market environments, including exposure to risks that we might fail to identify or anticipate.

 

We are dependent on the use of data and modeling both in our management’s decision‑making generally and in meeting regulatory expectations in particular.

 

The use of statistical and quantitative models and other quantitatively‑based analyses is endemic to bank decision‑making and regulatory compliance processes, and the employment of such analyses is becoming increasingly widespread in our operations. Liquidity stress testing, interest rate sensitivity analysis, the automated extension of credit based on defined criteria and the identification of possible violations of anti‑money laundering regulations are all examples of areas in which we are dependent on models and the data that underlies them. Our DFAST and CCAR submissions also create significate dependencies on data and modeling. We anticipate that model‑derived insights will penetrate further into bank decision‑making, and particularly risk management efforts, as the capacities developed to meet rigorous stress testing requirements are able to be employed more widely. While these quantitative techniques and approaches improve our decision‑making, they also create the possibility that faulty data or flawed quantitative approaches could yield adverse outcomes or regulatory scrutiny. Secondarily, because of the complexity inherent in these approaches, misunderstanding or misuse of their outputs could similarly result in suboptimal decision‑making.

 

We entered into a License Agreement with BancWest Holding, BancWest and BOW in connection with our IPO with respect to (1) models, data and related documentation for CCAR and DFAST purposes (the “Models”), (2) processes and coding for use in connection with the implementation, and compliance with, the reporting requirements of BNP Paribas USA and BWC (the “Reporting Processes”), and (3) technology relating to core banking, payment processing and the wire transfer platform in connection with the provision of services covered by the Transitional Services Agreement (“Services Technology”) that has been developed and will continue to be developed up to the applicable dates specified in the License Agreement. Under the License Agreement, each party has granted each other party a perpetual, non‑exclusive license to its rights in the Models, Reporting Processes and Services Technology, subject to obtaining any necessary third‑party rights to intellectual property, data, models, materials and information included or incorporated in or with any Model, Reporting Process or Services Technology.

 

The occurrence of fraudulent activity, breaches or failures of our information security controls or cybersecurity‑related incidents could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

As a financial institution, we are susceptible to fraudulent activity, information security breaches and cybersecurity‑related incidents that may be committed against us or our clients, which may result in financial losses or increased costs to us or our clients, disclosure or misuse of our information or our client information, misappropriation of assets, privacy breaches against our clients, litigation or damage to our reputation. Such fraudulent activity may take many forms, including check fraud, electronic fraud, wire fraud, phishing, social engineering and other dishonest acts. Information security breaches and cybersecurity‑related incidents may include fraudulent or unauthorized access to systems used by us or our clients, denial or degradation of service attacks, and malware or other cyber‑attacks. In recent periods, there continues to be a rise in electronic fraudulent activity, security breaches and cyber‑attacks within the financial services industry, especially in the commercial banking sector due to cyber criminals targeting commercial bank accounts. Consistent with industry trends, we have also experienced an increase in attempted electronic fraudulent activity, security breaches and cybersecurity‑related incidents in recent periods. Moreover, in recent periods, several large corporations, including financial institutions and retail companies, have suffered major data breaches, in some cases exposing not only confidential and proprietary corporate information, but also sensitive financial and other personal information of their customers and employees and subjecting them to potential fraudulent activity. Some of our clients may have been affected by these breaches, which increase their risks of identity theft, credit card fraud and other fraudulent activity that could involve their accounts with us.

 

We also face risks related to cyber‑attacks and other security breaches in connection with credit card transactions that typically involve the transmission of sensitive information regarding our customers through various third parties, including merchant acquiring banks, payment processors, payment card networks and our processors. Some of these parties have in the past been the target of security breaches and cyber‑attacks, and because the transactions involve third parties and environments such as the point of sale that we do not control or secure, future security breaches or cyber‑attacks affecting any of these third parties could impact us through no fault of our own, and in some cases we may have exposure and suffer losses for breaches or attacks relating to them.

 

Information pertaining to us and our customers is maintained, and transactions are executed, on networks and systems maintained by us, our customers and certain of our third party partners, such as our online banking or reporting systems. The secure maintenance and transmission of confidential information, as well as execution of transactions over these systems, are essential to protect us and our customers against fraud and security breaches and to maintain our customers’ confidence. Breaches of information security also may occur, and in infrequent cases have occurred, through intentional or unintentional acts by those having access to our systems or our customers’ or counterparties’ confidential information, including employees. In addition, increases in criminal activity levels and sophistication, advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries, vulnerabilities in third‑party technologies (including browsers and operating systems) or other developments could result in a compromise or breach of the technology, processes and controls that we use to prevent fraudulent transactions and to protect data about us, our customers and underlying transactions, as well as the technology used by our customers to access our systems. Although we have developed, and continue to invest in, systems and processes that are designed to detect and prevent security breaches and cyber‑attacks and periodically test our security, our inability to anticipate, or failure to adequately mitigate, breaches of security could result in: losses to us or our customers; our loss of business and/or customers; damage to our reputation; the incurrence of additional expenses; disruption to our business; our inability to grow our online services or other businesses; additional regulatory scrutiny or penalties; or our exposure to civil litigation and possible financial liability — any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

More generally, publicized information concerning security and cyber‑related problems could inhibit the use or growth of electronic or web‑based applications or solutions as a means of conducting commercial transactions. Such publicity may also cause damage to our reputation as a financial institution. As a result, our business, financial condition or results of operations could be adversely affected.

 

Employee misconduct could expose us to significant legal liability and reputational harm.

 

We are vulnerable to reputational harm because we operate in an industry in which integrity and the confidence of our customers are of critical importance. Our employees could engage in misconduct that adversely affects our business. For example, if an employee were to engage in fraudulent, illegal or suspicious activities, we could be subject to regulatory sanctions and suffer serious harm to our reputation (as a consequence of the negative perception resulting from such activities), financial position, customer relationships and ability to attract new customers. Our business often requires that we deal with confidential information. If our employees were to improperly use or disclose this information, even if inadvertently, we could suffer serious harm to our reputation, financial position and current and future business relationships. It is not always possible to deter employee misconduct, and the precautions we take to detect and prevent this activity may not always be effective. Misconduct by our employees, or even unsubstantiated allegations of misconduct, could result in a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We continually encounter technological change.

 

The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new, technology‑driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Certain of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements than we do. We may not be able to effectively implement new, technology‑driven products and services or implement them as quickly as our competitors do or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. In addition, the implementation of technological changes and upgrades to maintain current systems and integrate new ones may also cause service interruptions, transaction processing errors and system conversion delays and may cause us to fail to comply with applicable laws. Failure to successfully keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry and failure to avoid interruptions, errors and delays could cause us to lose customers or have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We expect that new technologies and business processes applicable to the consumer credit industry will continue to emerge, and these new technologies and business processes may be better than those we currently use. Because the pace of technological change is high and our industry is intensely competitive, we may not be able to sustain our investment in new technology as critical systems and applications become obsolete or as better ones become available. A failure to maintain current technology and business processes could cause disruptions in our operations or cause our products and services to be less competitive, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may be adversely affected by changes in the actual or perceived soundness or condition of other financial institutions.

 

Financial services institutions that deal with each other are interconnected as a result of trading, investment, liquidity management, clearing, counterparty and other relationships. Within the financial services industry, loss of public confidence, including through default by any one institution, could lead to liquidity challenges or to defaults by other institutions. Concerns about, or a default by, one institution could lead to significant liquidity problems and losses or defaults by other institutions, as the commercial and financial soundness of many financial institutions is closely related as a result of these credit, trading, clearing and other relationships. Even the perceived lack of creditworthiness of, or questions about, a counterparty may lead to market‑wide liquidity problems and losses or defaults by various institutions. This systemic risk may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, banks and exchanges with which we interact on a daily basis or key funding providers such as the Federal Home Loan Banks, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our access to liquidity or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may need to raise additional capital in the future, and such capital may not be available when needed or at all.

 

We may need to raise additional capital, in the form of additional debt or equity, in the future to have sufficient capital resources and liquidity to meet our commitments and fund our business needs and future growth, particularly if the quality of our assets or earnings were to deteriorate significantly. Our ability to raise additional capital, if needed, will depend on, among other things, conditions in the capital markets at that time, which are outside of our control, and our financial condition. Economic conditions and a loss of confidence in financial institutions may increase our cost of funding and limit access to certain customary sources of capital, including inter‑bank borrowings, repurchase agreements and borrowings from the discount window of the Federal Reserve System. We may not be able to obtain capital on acceptable terms — or at all. Any occurrence that may limit our access to the capital markets, such as a decline in the confidence of debt purchasers, depositors of our bank or counterparties participating in the capital markets or other disruption in capital markets, may adversely affect our capital costs and our ability to raise capital and, in turn, our liquidity. Further, if we need to raise capital in the future, we may have to do so when many other financial institutions are also seeking to raise capital and would then have to compete with those institutions for investors. An inability to raise additional capital on acceptable terms when needed could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may rely on the mortgage secondary market for some of our liquidity.

 

We may originate and sell mortgage loans. Loans sold on the secondary market represented $0.3 million and $167.2 million of mortgage loans for the years ended December 31, 2016 and 2015, respectively. We rely on Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”), Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (“Freddie Mac”) and other purchasers to purchase loans in order to reduce our credit risk and provide funding for additional loans we desire to originate. We cannot provide assurance that these purchasers will not materially limit their purchases from us due to capital constraints or other factors, including, with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a change in the criteria for conforming loans. In addition, various proposals have been made to reform the U.S. residential mortgage finance market, including the role of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The exact effects of any such reforms are not yet known, but may limit our ability to sell conforming loans to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. In addition, mortgage lending is highly regulated, and our inability to comply with all federal and state regulations and investor guidelines regarding the origination, underwriting documentation and servicing of mortgage loans may also impact our ability to continue selling mortgage loans. If we are unable to continue to sell loans in the secondary market, our ability to fund, and thus originate, additional mortgage loans may be adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Consumer protection initiatives related to the foreclosure process could materially affect our ability as a creditor to obtain remedies.

 

In 2011, Hawaii revised its rules for nonjudicial, or out‑of‑court, foreclosures. Prior to the revision, most lenders used the nonjudicial foreclosure method to handle foreclosures in Hawaii, as the process was less expensive and quicker than going through the court foreclosure process. After the revised rules went into effect, many lenders ended up forgoing nonjudicial foreclosures entirely and filing all foreclosures in court, which has created a backlog and slowed the judicial foreclosure process. Many lenders continue to exclusively use the judicial foreclosure process, making the foreclosure process very lengthy. Additionally, the joint federal‑state settlement with several mortgage servicers over abuse of foreclosure practices creates further uncertainty for us and the mortgage servicing industry in general with respect to implementation of mortgage loan modifications and loss mitigation practices going forward. The manner in which these issues are ultimately resolved could impact our foreclosure procedures, which in turn could adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operation.

 

We are subject to a variety of risks in connection with any sale of loans we may conduct.

 

When we sell mortgage loans we are required to make customary representations and warranties to the purchaser about the mortgage loans and the manner in which they were originated and serviced. If any of these representations and warranties are incorrect, we may be required to indemnify the purchaser for any related losses, or we may be required to repurchase or provide substitute mortgage loans for part or all of the affected loans. We may also be required to repurchase loans as a result of borrower fraud or in the event of early payment default by the borrower on a loan we have sold. If the level of repurchase and indemnity activity becomes material, it could have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, business, financial condition or results of operations. Mortgage lending is highly regulated. Our inability to comply with

all federal and state regulations and investor guidelines regarding the origination, underwriting documentation and servicing of mortgage loans may impact our ability to sell mortgage loans in the future.

 

In addition, we must report as held for sale any loans which we have undertaken to sell, whether or not a purchase agreement for the loans has been executed. We may therefore be unable to ultimately complete a sale for part or all of the loans we classify as held for sale. We must exercise our judgment in determining when loans must be reclassified from held for investment status to held for sale status under applicable accounting guidelines. Any failure to accurately report loans as held for sale could result in regulatory investigations and monetary penalties. Any of these actions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Our policy is to carry loans held for sale at the lower of cost or fair value. As a result, prior to being sold, any loans classified as held for sale may be adversely affected by market conditions, including changes in interest rates, and by changes in the borrower’s creditworthiness, and the value associated with these loans, including any loans originated for sale in the secondary market, may decline prior to being sold. We may be required to reduce the value of any loans we mark held for sale as a result, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

The appraisals and other valuation techniques we use in evaluating and monitoring loans secured by real property, other real estate owned (“OREO”) and repossessed personal property may not accurately describe the net value of the asset.

 

In considering whether to make a loan secured by real property, we generally require an appraisal of the property. However, an appraisal is only an estimate of the value of the property at the time the appraisal is made, and, as real estate values may change significantly in value in relatively short periods of time (especially in periods of heightened economic uncertainty), this estimate may not accurately describe the net value of the real property collateral after the loan is made. As a result, we may not be able to realize the full amount of any remaining indebtedness when we foreclose on and sell the relevant property. In addition, we rely on appraisals and other valuation techniques to establish the value of our OREO and personal property that we acquire through foreclosure proceedings and to determine certain loan impairments. If any of these valuations are inaccurate, our consolidated financial statements may not reflect the correct value of our OREO, and our Allowance for loan losses may not reflect accurate loan impairments. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our operations could be interrupted if certain external vendors on which we rely experience difficulty, terminate their services or fail to comply with banking laws and regulations.

 

We depend to a significant extent on relationships with third party service providers that provide services, primarily information technology services, that are critical to our operations. We utilize third party core banking services and receive credit card and debit card services, Internet banking services, various information services and services complementary to our banking products from various third party service providers. If any of our third party service providers experience difficulties or terminate their services and we are unable to replace our service providers with other service providers, our operations could be interrupted. It may be difficult for us to replace some of our third party vendors, particularly vendors providing our core banking, credit card and debit card services and information services, in a timely manner if they are unwilling or unable to provide us with these services in the future for any reason. If an interruption were to continue for a significant period of time, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Even if we are able to replace them, it may be at higher cost to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, if a third party provider fails to provide the services we require, fails to meet contractual requirements, such as compliance with applicable laws and regulations, or suffers a cyber‑attack or other security breach, our business could suffer economic and reputational harm that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about customers and counterparties.

 

In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, and in evaluating and monitoring our loan portfolio on an ongoing basis, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of those customers or counterparties or of other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate, incomplete, fraudulent or misleading financial statements, credit reports or other financial or business information, or the failure to receive such information on a timely basis, could result in loan losses, reputational damage or other effects that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Downgrades to the credit rating of the U.S. government or of its securities or any of its agencies by one or more of the credit ratings agencies could have a material adverse effect on general economic conditions, as well as our business.

 

On August 5, 2011, Standard & Poor’s cut the credit rating of the U.S. federal government’s long‑term sovereign debt from AAA to AA+, while also keeping its outlook negative. Moody’s had lowered its own outlook for the same debt to “Negative” on August 2, 2011, and Fitch also lowered its outlook for the same debt to “Negative”, on November 28, 2011. In 2013, both Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s revised their outlooks from “Negative” to “Stable”, and on March 21, 2014, Fitch revised its outlook from “Negative” to “Stable”. Further downgrades of the U.S. federal government’s sovereign credit rating, and the perceived creditworthiness of U.S. government‑backed obligations, could impact our ability to obtain funding that is collateralized by affected instruments and our ability to access capital markets on favorable terms. Such downgrades could also affect the pricing of funding, when funding is available. A downgrade of the credit rating of the U.S. government, or of its agencies, government‑sponsored enterprises or related institutions, agencies or instrumentalities, may also adversely affect the market value of such instruments and, further, exacerbate the other risks to which we are subject and any related adverse effects on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our accounting estimates and risk management processes and controls rely on analytical and forecasting techniques and models and assumptions, and actual results may differ from these estimates.

 

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in selecting and applying many of these accounting policies and methods so they comply with GAAP and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report our financial condition and results. In some cases, management must select the accounting policy or method to apply from two or more alternatives, any of which may be reasonable under the circumstances, yet which may result in our reporting materially different results than would have been reported under a different alternative.

 

Certain accounting policies are critical to presenting our financial condition and results of operations. They require management to make difficult, subjective or complex judgments about matters that are uncertain. Materially different amounts could be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions or estimates. These critical accounting policies include the allowance for loan and lease losses, fair value measurements, pension and postretirement benefit obligations and income taxes. Because of the uncertainty of estimates involved in these matters, we may be required to do one or more of the following: significantly increase the allowance for loan losses or sustain loan losses that are significantly higher than the reserve provided; reduce the carrying value of an asset measured at fair value; or significantly increase our accrued tax liability. Any of these could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. See “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Critical Accounting Policies” for more information.

 

Our internal controls, disclosure controls, processes and procedures, and corporate governance policies and procedures are based in part on certain assumptions and can provide only reasonable (not absolute) assurances that the objectives of the system are met. Any failure or circumvention of our controls, processes and procedures or failure to comply with regulations related to controls, processes and procedures could necessitate changes in those controls, processes and procedures, which may increase our compliance costs, divert management attention from our business or subject us to regulatory actions and increased regulatory scrutiny. Any of these could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We are subject to environmental liability risk associated with our bank branches and any real estate collateral we acquire upon foreclosure.

 

During the ordinary course of business, we may foreclose on and take title to properties securing certain loans that we have originated or acquired. We also have an extensive branch network, owning separate branch locations throughout the areas we serve. For any real property that we may possess, there is a risk that hazardous or toxic substances could be found on these properties. If hazardous or toxic substances are found, we may be liable for remediation costs, as well as for personal injury and property damage and costs of complying with applicable environmental regulatory requirements. Failure to comply with such requirements can result in penalties. Environmental laws may require us to incur substantial expenses and may materially reduce the affected property’s value or limit our ability to use, sell or lease the affected property. In addition, future laws or more stringent interpretations or enforcement policies with respect to existing laws may increase our exposure to environmental liability. The remediation costs and any other financial liabilities associated with an environmental hazard could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may be subject to claims and litigation pertaining to our fiduciary responsibilities.

 

Some of the services we provide, such as trust and investment services, require us to act as fiduciaries for our customers and others. From time to time, third parties make claims and take legal action against us pertaining to the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities. If these claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to us, we may be exposed to significant financial liability or our reputation could be damaged. Either of these results may adversely impact demand for our products and services or otherwise have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Changes in our accounting policies or in accounting standards could materially affect how we report our financial results and condition.

 

From time to time, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) and the SEC change the financial accounting and reporting standards that govern the preparation of our financial statements. As a result of changes to financial accounting or reporting standards, whether promulgated or required by the FASB or other regulators, we could be required to change certain of the assumptions or estimates we have previously used in preparing our financial statements, which could negatively impact how we record and report our results of operations and financial condition generally. For example, in 2016, the FASB approved new accounting standards that would, as applicable, require companies to (1) include lease obligations on their balance sheets and (2) recognize lifetime expected credit losses on financial instruments. These new standards, which will be effective in 2019 and 2020, respectively, will result in changes to our accounting presentation and could adversely affect our balance sheet, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Risks Related to the Regulatory Oversight of Our Business

 

The banking industry is highly regulated, and the regulatory framework, together with any future legislative or regulatory changes, may have a significant adverse effect on our operations.

 

The banking industry is extensively regulated and supervised under both federal and state laws and regulations that are intended primarily for the protection of depositors, customers, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not for the protection of our stockholders and creditors. We are subject to regulation and supervision by the Federal Reserve, and our bank is subject to regulation and supervision by the FDIC, the CFPB and the Hawaii DFI. The laws and regulations applicable to us govern a variety of matters, including permissible types, amounts and terms of loans and investments we may make, the maximum interest rate that may be charged, the amount of reserves we must hold against deposits we take, the types of deposits we may accept, maintenance of adequate capital and liquidity, changes in the control of us and our bank, restrictions on dividends and establishment of new offices. We must obtain approval from our regulators before engaging in certain activities, and there is the risk that such approvals may not be obtained, either in a timely manner or at all. Our regulators also have the ability to compel us to take, or restrict us from taking, certain actions entirely, such as actions that our regulators deem to constitute an unsafe or unsound banking practice. Our failure to comply with any applicable laws or regulations, or regulatory policies and interpretations of such laws and regulations, could result in sanctions by regulatory agencies, civil money penalties or damage to our reputation, all of which could have a material adverse effect our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Since the Great Recession, federal and state banking laws and regulations, as well as interpretations and implementations of these laws and regulations, have undergone substantial review and change. In particular, the Dodd‑Frank Act drastically revised the laws and regulations under which we operate. Financial institutions generally have also been subjected to increased scrutiny from regulatory authorities. These changes and increased scrutiny have resulted and may continue to result in increased costs of doing business and may in the future result in decreased revenues and net income, reduce our ability to effectively compete to attract and retain customers, or make it less attractive for us to continue providing certain products and services. Recent political developments, including the new presidential administration in the United States, have added additional uncertainty to the implementation, scope and timing of changes in regulatory policy. Any future changes in federal and state law and regulations, as well as the interpretations and implementations, or modifications or repeals, of such laws and regulations, could affect us in substantial and unpredictable ways, including those listed above or other ways that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We are required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength for our bank in times of stress.

 

Under federal law, we are required to act as a source of financial and managerial strength to our bank, and to commit resources to support our bank if necessary. We may be required to commit additional resources to our bank at times when we may not be in a financial position to provide such resources or when it may not be in our, or our stockholders’ or our creditors’ best interests to do so. Providing such support is more likely during times of financial stress for us and our bank, which may make any capital we are required to raise to provide such support more expensive than it might otherwise be. In addition, any capital loans we make to our bank are subordinate in right of payment to depositors and to certain other indebtedness of our bank. In the event of our bankruptcy, any commitment by us to a federal banking regulator to maintain the capital of our bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment. See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation – Liability of Commonly Controlled Institutions” for more information on our cross-guarantee liability.

 

We are subject to capital adequacy requirements and may be subject to more stringent capital requirements.

 

As more specifically described below, we are subject to capital adequacy guidelines and other regulatory requirements specifying minimum amounts and types of capital that we must maintain. From time to time, the regulators change these regulatory capital adequacy and liquidity guidelines. If we fail to meet these minimum capital adequacy and liquidity guidelines and other regulatory requirements, we or our subsidiaries may be restricted in the types of activities we may conduct and we may be prohibited from taking certain capital actions, such as paying dividends and repurchasing or redeeming capital securities. See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Regulatory Capital Requirements” for more information on the capital adequacy standards that we must meet and maintain. In particular, the capital adequacy and liquidity requirements applicable to the Company and the Bank under the recently adopted capital rules implementing the Basel III capital framework in the United States began to be phased in starting in 2015.

 

On July 1, 2016, as a result of the Federal Reserve’s requirements (under Regulation YY) that foreign banks with significant U.S. operations consolidate their U.S. operations under an intermediate holding company, we became an indirect subsidiary of BNP Paribas USA, BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company. From July 1, 2016, and until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are considered a top‑tier U.S. bank holding company (i.e., the U.S. bank holding company that is the highest bank holding company in any organizational structure) by the Federal Reserve for capital and regulatory reporting purposes, the Basel III capital rules may not directly apply to us on a stand‑alone basis but rather apply to BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company on a consolidated basis, including the Company as part of that consolidated group, as BNPP’s top‑tier U.S. bank holding company. Nonetheless, we intend to monitor and manage the capital adequacy of the Company in a manner that would result in the Company satisfying the capital requirements described herein and as applicable to a top‑tier U.S. bank holding company on a stand‑alone basis. We expect to become directly subject to these regulatory capital requirements on a stand‑alone basis in the future following the time at which BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are considered a top‑tier bank holding company by the Federal Reserve for capital and regulatory reporting purposes.

 

Due to the level of BancWest’s total consolidated assets prior to the Reorganization Transactions, BancWest was subject to the Federal Reserve’s requirement to submit a capital plan as part of the CCAR process and conduct stress tests for 2016. We will remain subject to the Federal Reserve’s CCAR and capital plan requirements until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer required to be included in

the CCAR review and any capital plan of the other U.S. entities of BNPP. It is possible that BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes may need to fall to less than 5.0% of any class of our voting securities, or even to zero, before the CCAR review and capital plan requirements applicable to BNPP’s U.S. entities will no longer apply to us. See “— Risks Related to Our Controlling Stockholder — We continue to be subject to regulation and supervision as a subsidiary of BNPP”. The stress testing requirements may have the effect of requiring us to comply with the final Basel III capital rule, or potentially even greater capital requirements, sooner than expected.

 

While we expect to meet the requirements of the new Basel III‑based capital rules on a stand‑alone basis, we may fail to do so. In addition, these requirements could have a negative impact on our ability to lend, grow deposit balances, make acquisitions or make capital distributions in the form of dividends and share repurchases. Higher capital levels could also lower our return on equity.

 

Unfavorable results from stress analyses may adversely affect our ability to retain customers or compete for new business opportunities.

 

The Federal Reserve conducts an annual stress analysis of bank holding companies with average total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more to evaluate their ability to absorb losses in three economic and financial scenarios generated by the Federal Reserve, including adverse and severely adverse economic and financial scenarios. The rules also require such bank holding companies and their bank subsidiaries with $50 billion or more in total assets to conduct their own semi‑annual stress analysis to assess the potential impact of the scenarios used as part of the Federal Reserve’s annual stress analysis. A summary of the results of certain aspects of the Federal Reserve’s annual stress analysis is released publicly and contains bank holding company specific information and results. The rules also require these bank holding companies to disclose publicly a summary of the results of their semi‑annual stress analyses, and their bank subsidiaries’ annual stress analyses, under the severely adverse scenario.

 

As discussed in “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Enhanced Prudential Standards — Stress Testing and Capital Planning (Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review),” BancWest was subject to the Federal Reserve’s annual stress analysis and semi‑annual company‑run stress analysis for 2016 and we will remain subject to the annual stress analysis and semi‑annual stress analysis indirectly through BWC and/or BNPP’s U.S. intermediate holding company until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer required to be included in the stress tests applicable to the other U.S. entities of BNPP.

 

The CCAR is an annual exercise by the Federal Reserve to assess whether the largest bank holding companies operating in the United States have sufficient capital to continue operations throughout times of economic and financial stress. DFAST is a separate stress testing required by the Federal Reserve to help assess whether institutions have sufficient capital to absorb losses and support operations during adverse economic conditions. DFAST applies to banking organizations with assets of $10 billion or more, while the CCAR applies to banking organizations with assets of $50 billion or more. Accordingly, even if we are no longer subject to the CCAR process at some point in the future, we will continue to be subject to DFAST.

 

Our regulators may also require us to raise additional capital or take other actions, or may impose restrictions on our business, based on the results of the stress tests, including rejecting, or requiring revisions to, any annual capital plan submitted in connection with a CCAR process that is applicable to us. See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulatory — Enhanced Prudential Standards — Stress Testing and Capital Planning (Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review)” for a description of the CCAR, including the capital plan requirement.

 

Although these stress tests are not meant to assess our current condition, our customers may misinterpret and adversely react to the results of these stress tests. Any potential misinterpretations and adverse reactions could limit our ability to attract and retain customers or to effectively compete for new business opportunities. The inability to attract and retain customers or effectively compete for new business may have a material and adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We may not pay dividends on our common stock in the future.

 

Holders of our common stock are entitled to receive only such dividends as our board of directors may declare out of funds legally available for such payments. Our board of directors may, in its sole discretion, change the amount or frequency of dividends or discontinue the payment of dividends entirely. In addition, we are a bank holding company, and

our ability to declare and pay dividends is dependent on certain federal regulatory considerations, including the guidelines of the Federal Reserve regarding capital adequacy and dividends. It is the policy of the Federal Reserve that bank holding companies should generally pay dividends on common stock only out of earnings, and only if prospective earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s expected future needs, asset quality and financial condition. Moreover, the Federal Reserve will closely scrutinize any dividend payout ratios exceeding 30% of after‑tax net income.

 

Additionally, BancWest was required to submit in 2016 (and, in the future, one or more of our parent holding companies will be required to submit) an annual capital plan to the Federal Reserve. For any year in which one or more of our parent holding companies is subject to the capital planning requirements, the Federal Reserve must review such capital plan or plans before we can take certain capital actions, including declaring and paying dividends and repurchasing or redeeming capital securities. If the Federal Reserve objects to all or part of a capital plan or any amendment to a capital plan for any reason, our ability to declare and pay dividends on our common stock may be limited. The Federal Reserve’s capital plan requirements will remain applicable to us until BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which we are no longer required to be included in any capital plan of the other U.S. entities of BNPP. It is possible that BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes may need to fall to less than 5.0% of any class of our voting securities, or even to zero, before the capital plan requirements applicable to BNPP’s U.S. entities will no longer apply to us.

 

While the Federal Reserve did not object to BancWest’s 2016 capital plan, which includes the payment of a quarterly dividend by us through the second quarter of 2017, there can be no assurance that the Federal Reserve will not object to the payment of dividends by us in connection with any capital plan requirements that are applicable to us in periods following the second quarter of 2017.

 

Further, if we are unable to satisfy the capital requirements applicable to us for any reason, we may not be able to make, or may have to reduce or eliminate, the payment of dividends on our common stock. Any change in the level of our dividends or the suspension of the payment thereof could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock. See “ – Risks Related to Our Business – Our liquidity is dependent on dividends from First Hawaiian Bank” for additional information on our reliance on dividends paid to us by the Bank.

 

Rulemaking changes implemented by the CFPB will result in higher regulatory and compliance costs that may adversely affect our results of operations.

 

The Dodd‑Frank Act created a new, independent federal agency, the CFPB, which was granted broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under various federal consumer financial protection laws. The CFPB also has examination and primary enforcement authority with respect to depository institutions with $10 billion or more in assets, their service providers and certain non‑depository entities such as debt collectors and consumer reporting agencies. The consumer protection provisions of the Dodd‑Frank Act and the examination, supervision and enforcement of those laws and implementing regulations by the CFPB have created a more intense and complex environment for consumer finance regulation. See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Consumer Financial Protection.” The ultimate impact of this heightened scrutiny is uncertain but could result in changes to pricing, practices, products and procedures. It could also result in increased costs related to regulatory oversight, supervision and examination, additional remediation efforts and possible penalties. We may also be required to add additional compliance personnel or incur other significant compliance‑related expenses. Our business, results of operations or competitive position may be adversely affected as a result.

 

Litigation and regulatory actions, including possible enforcement actions, could subject us to significant fines, penalties, judgments or other requirements resulting in increased expenses or restrictions on our business activities.

 

Our business is subject to increased litigation and regulatory risks as a result of a number of factors, including the highly regulated nature of the financial services industry and the focus of civil government attorneys on banks and the financial services industry generally. This focus has only intensified since the Great Recession, with regulators and civil government attorneys focusing on a variety of financial institution practices and requirements, including foreclosure practices, civil government attorneys with applicable consumer protection laws, classification of held for sale assets and compliance with anti‑money laundering statutes, the Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions administered by OFAC.

 

In the normal course of business, from time to time, we may be named as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with our business activities. Certain of the

legal actions included claims for substantial compensatory or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In addition, while the arbitration provisions in certain of our customer agreements historically have limited our exposure to consumer class action litigation, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in enforcing our arbitration clause in the future. We may also, from time to time, be the subject of subpoenas, requests for information, reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self‑regulatory agencies regarding our business. Any such legal or regulatory actions may subject us to substantial compensatory or punitive damages, significant fines, penalties, obligations to change our business practices or other requirements resulting in increased expenses, diminished income and damage to our reputation. Our involvement in any such matters, even if the matters are ultimately determined in our favor, could also cause significant harm to our reputation and divert management attention from the operation of our business. Further, any settlement, consent order or adverse judgment in connection with any formal or informal proceeding or investigation by government agencies may result in litigation, investigations or proceedings as other litigants and government agencies begin independent reviews of the same activities. As a result, the outcome of legal and regulatory actions could be material to our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows depending on, among other factors, the level of our earnings for that period, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Increases in FDIC insurance premiums may adversely affect our earnings.

 

Our bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC up to legal limits and, accordingly, our bank is subject to FDIC deposit insurance assessments. We generally cannot control the amount of premiums our bank will be required to pay for FDIC insurance. In 2010, the FDIC increased the deposit insurance fund’s target reserve ratio to 2.0% of insured deposits following the Dodd‑Frank Act’s elimination of the 1.5% cap on the insurance fund’s reserve ratio and has put in place a restoration plan to restore the deposit insurance fund to its 1.35% minimum reserve ratio mandated by the Dodd‑Frank Act by September 30, 2020. Additional increases in assessment rates may be required in the future to achieve this targeted reserve ratio. In addition, higher levels of bank failures during the Great Recession and increases in the statutory deposit insurance limits have increased resolution costs to the FDIC and put pressure on the deposit insurance fund. Future increases of FDIC insurance premiums or special assessments could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Non‑compliance with the USA PATRIOT Act, the Bank Secrecy Act or other laws and regulations could result in fines or sanctions against us.

 

The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and the Bank Secrecy Act require financial institutions to design and implement programs to prevent financial institutions from being used for money laundering and terrorist activities. If such activities are detected, financial institutions are obligated to file suspicious activity reports with the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. These rules require financial institutions to establish procedures for identifying and verifying the identity of customers seeking to open new financial accounts. Federal and state bank regulators also have begun to focus on compliance with Bank Secrecy Act and anti‑money laundering regulations. Failure to comply with these regulations could result in fines or sanctions, including restrictions on conducting acquisitions or establishing new branches. During the last year, several banking institutions have received large fines for non‑compliance with these laws and regulations. While we have developed policies and procedures designed to assist in compliance with these laws and regulations, these policies and procedures may not be effective in preventing violations of these laws and regulations. Failure to maintain and implement adequate programs to combat money laundering and terrorist financing could also have serious reputational consequences for us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Regulations relating to privacy, information security and data protection could increase our costs, affect or limit how we collect and use personal information and adversely affect our business opportunities.

 

We are subject to various privacy, information security and data protection laws, including requirements concerning security breach notification, and we could be negatively impacted by these laws. For example, our business is subject to the Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act which, among other things: (i) imposes certain limitations on our ability to share nonpublic personal information about our customers with nonaffiliated third parties; (ii) requires that we provide certain disclosures to customers about our information collection, sharing and security practices and afford customers the right to “opt out” of any information sharing by us with nonaffiliated third parties (with certain exceptions) and (iii) requires that we develop, implement and maintain a written comprehensive information security program containing safeguards appropriate based on our size and complexity, the nature and scope of our activities, and the sensitivity of customer

information we process, as well as plans for responding to data security breaches. Various state and federal banking regulators and states have also enacted data security breach notification requirements with varying levels of individual, consumer, regulatory or law enforcement notification in certain circumstances in the event of a security breach. Moreover, legislators and regulators in the United States are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, information security and data protection laws that potentially could have a significant impact on our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security‑related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer or employee information, and some of our current or planned business activities. This could also increase our costs of compliance and business operations and could reduce income from certain business initiatives. This includes increased privacy‑related enforcement activity at the federal level, by the Federal Trade Commission, as well as at the state level, such as with regard to mobile applications.

 

Compliance with current or future privacy, data protection and information security laws (including those regarding security breach notification) affecting customer or employee data to which we are subject could result in higher compliance and technology costs and could restrict our ability to provide certain products and services, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions or results of operations. Our failure to comply with privacy, data protection and information security laws could result in potentially significant regulatory or governmental investigations or actions, litigation, fines, sanctions and damage to our reputation, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Our use of third party vendors and our other ongoing third party business relationships are subject to increasing regulatory requirements and attention.

 

We regularly use third party vendors as part of our business. We also have substantial ongoing business relationships with other third parties. These types of third party relationships are subject to increasingly demanding regulatory requirements and attention by our federal bank regulators. Recent regulation requires us to enhance our due diligence, ongoing monitoring and control over our third party vendors and other ongoing third party business relationships. In certain cases we may be required to renegotiate our agreements with these vendors to meet these enhanced requirements, which could increase our costs. We expect that our regulators will hold us responsible for deficiencies in our oversight and control of our third party relationships and in the performance of the parties with which we have these relationships. As a result, if our regulators conclude that we have not exercised adequate oversight and control over our third party vendors or other ongoing third party business relationships or that such third parties have not performed appropriately, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including civil money penalties or other administrative or judicial penalties or fines as well as requirements for customer remediation, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

We are required to disclose in our periodic reports filed with the SEC specified activities engaged in by our “affiliates”.

 

In August 2012, Congress enacted the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITRSHRA”), which expands the scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran. Section 219 of ITRSHRA amended the Exchange Act, to require companies subject to SEC reporting obligations under Section 13 of the Exchange Act to disclose in their periodic reports specified dealings or transactions involving Iran or other individuals and entities targeted by certain OFAC sanctions engaged in by the reporting company or any of its affiliates during the period covered by the relevant periodic report. In some cases, ITRSHRA requires companies to disclose these types of transactions even if they would otherwise be permissible under U.S. law. Reporting companies are required to separately file with the SEC a notice that such activities have been disclosed in the relevant periodic report, and the SEC is required to post this notice of disclosure on its website and send the report to the U.S. President and certain U.S. Congressional committees. The U.S. President thereafter is required to initiate an investigation and, within 180 days of initiating such an investigation, to determine whether sanctions should be imposed. Under ITRSHRA, we would be required to report if we or any of our “affiliates” knowingly engaged in certain specified activities during the period covered by the report. Because the SEC defines the term “affiliate” broadly, it includes any entity controlled by us as well as any person or entity that controls us or is under common control with us. Because we are a controlled affiliate of BNPP, we may be required to disclose certain activities undertaken by BNPP with Iranian counterparties during an applicable reporting period. We have disclosed such activities in the “Part II, Item 9B. Other” section of this Form 10-K. Disclosure of such activities, even if such activities are not subject to sanctions under applicable law, and any sanctions actually imposed on us or our affiliates as a result of these activities, could harm our reputation and have a negative impact on our business.

 

Risks Related to Our Controlling Stockholder

 

BNPP continues to have significant control over us, and its interests may conflict with ours or yours in the future.

 

BNPP beneficially owns approximately 62% of our common stock. As a result, BNPP continues to have significant control over us. For so long as BNPP controls more than 50% of our outstanding common stock, BNPP will be able to determine the outcome of all matters requiring approval of stockholders, cause or prevent a change of control of our company and preclude all unsolicited acquisitions of our company, including transactions that may be in the best interests of our other stockholders. Going forward, BNPP’s degree of control will depend on, among other things, its level of beneficial ownership of our common stock and its ability to exercise certain rights under the terms of the Stockholder Agreement that we entered into with BNPP in connection with our IPO.

 

Under the terms of the Stockholder Agreement, BNPP is entitled to designate nominees for election to our board of directors and make certain appointments to committees of our board. Pursuant to the Stockholder Agreement, until the earlier of (i) the one‑year anniversary of the first date when BNPP ceases to directly or indirectly beneficially own 50% of our outstanding common stock and (ii) the date BNPP ceases to directly or indirectly beneficially own at least 25% of our outstanding common stock, BNPP will have the right to designate a majority of the nominees for election to our board of directors. In addition, until BNPP ceases to directly or indirectly own at least 25% of our outstanding common stock, we will still be required to obtain the approval of a majority of the directors on our board of directors designated for nomination and election by BNPP before undertaking (or permitting or authorizing any of our subsidiaries to undertake) various significant corporate actions, including engaging in certain business activities, amending our bylaws, entrance into mergers or consolidations with a consideration value in excess of certain thresholds, entrance into, amendments to or terminations of material agreements (subject to certain exceptions), incurrence or guarantee of indebtedness in excess of certain thresholds (subject to certain exceptions), termination of our or our bank’s Chief Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer (other than for cause) and certain other significant transactions. BNPP will retain other approval rights until it ceases to directly or indirectly own at least 5% of our outstanding common stock, including approval rights relating to our issuance of capital stock (subject to certain exceptions), listing or delisting our securities on a national securities exchange and certain other matters. BNPP will also retain certain approval rights until it ceases to consolidate our financial statements with its financial statements under the International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”), including approval rights relating to our annual budget and any changes in our independent public accounting firm. In addition, BNPP will retain certain approval rights until it ceases to control us for purposes of the BHC Act (unless earlier waived), including approval rights relating to the declaration or payment of dividends and certain other matters.

 

BNPP’s concentration of voting power and veto rights could deprive stockholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares of common stock as part of a sale of our Company, and could affect the market price of our common stock. In addition, BNPP’s interests may differ from our interests or those of our other stockholders, and BNPP may affect the management of our business or may not exercise its voting power or consent rights in a manner favorable to our other stockholders. We will also continue to be subject to the regulatory supervision applicable to BNPP and companies under its control, including enhanced regulations in France, the United States and the other markets in which BNPP operates that apply to BNPP because it is a “global systemically important financial institution.” Accordingly, BNPP’s control over us and the consequences of such control could have a material adverse effect on our business and business prospects and negatively impact the trading price of our common stock. Additionally, in accordance with the Insurance Agreement we entered into with BNPP in connection with our IPO, until such time as BNPP no longer directly or indirectly beneficially owns 50% of our outstanding common stock, we will rely on BNPP to procure and maintain director and officer liability insurance for us. After such time, we will be responsible for procuring and maintaining our own director and officer liability insurance. At such time, we will be without the benefit of BNPP’s leverage with our insurance providers to negotiate the new policies which may result in increased costs to us.

 

We may fail to replicate or replace functions, systems and infrastructure provided to us by BNPP or certain of its affiliates, and BNPP and its affiliates may fail to perform the services provided for in the Transitional Services Agreement.

 

Although, historically, we have operated largely as a standalone company without receiving significant services from BNPP or any of its affiliates, we have received certain services from BNPP and BOW, and provided other services to BNPP and BOW, including information technology services, services that support financial transactions and budgeting, risk management and compliance services, human resources services, insurance, operations and other support services, primarily through shared services contracts with various third party service providers. BNPP and its affiliates, including

BOW, have no obligation to provide any support to us other than the services provided pursuant to certain agreements that we entered into in connection with our IPO, including the Transitional Services Agreement. Under the Transitional Services Agreement, BNPP, BWHI and BOW have agreed to continue to provide us with certain services provided to us prior to the IPO by or through BNPP, BWHI and BOW, either directly or on a pass‑through basis, and we have agreed to continue to provide, or arrange to provide, BNPP, BWHI and BOW with certain services we have historically provided to them, either directly or on a pass‑through basis. The Transitional Services Agreement will terminate on December 31, 2018, although the provision of certain services will terminate on earlier dates. We expect to incur additional annual costs for services provided to us under the Transitional Services Agreement.

 

We are working to replicate or replace the services that we will continue to need in the operation of our business that are provided currently by BNPP, BWHI or BOW through shared service contracts they have with various third party service providers and that will continue to be provided under the Transitional Services Agreement for applicable transitional periods. Although we have negotiated the terms of the Transitional Services Agreement on an arms’‑length basis, we cannot assure you that we could not obtain the services to which it relates at the same or better levels or at the same or lower costs directly from third party providers. As a result, when BNPP, BWHI and BOW cease providing these services to us, either as a result of the termination of the Transitional Services Agreement or individual services thereunder or a failure by BNPP, BWHI and BOW to perform their respective obligations under the Transitional Services Agreement, our costs of procuring these services or comparable replacement services may increase, and the cessation of such services may result in service interruptions and divert management attention from other aspects of our operations. In particular, certain third‑party contracts underlying services that BNPP, BWHI and BOW provide to us on a pass‑through basis do not allow such services to be passed through to us once BNPP’s beneficial ownership of our common stock generally falls below 50%. As a result, the provision of such services under the Transitional Services Agreement will cease on such date and will not be subject to extension. Although we intend to procure comparable replacement services on our own in advance of this date, because we do not know when this ownership threshold will be reached, we cannot ensure that we will be able to procure such replacement services in a timely manner or on a cost‑efficient basis. Similarly, BOW will no longer be able to receive certain services on a pass‑through basis through contracts we have with third parties after the ownership threshold is reached. If we have not entered into standalone agreements by that time, we may be responsible for fees that otherwise would have been the responsibility of BOW.

 

There is a risk that an increase in the costs associated with replicating and replacing the services provided to us under the Transitional Services Agreement and the diversion of management’s attention to these matters could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Additionally, we may not be able to operate effectively if the quality of replacement services is inferior to the services we are currently receiving. Furthermore, once we are no longer an affiliate of BNPP, we will no longer receive certain group discounts and reduced fees that we are eligible to receive as an affiliate of BNPP. The loss of these discounts and reduced fees could increase our expenses and have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Contingent liabilities related to our spinoff of BWHI and BOW as part of the Reorganization Transactions could materially and adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

 

As part of the Reorganization Transactions, we contributed our subsidiary, BOW, to BWHI, a bank holding company that is a Delaware corporation, and then spun off BWHI to BNPP. In connection with the Reorganization Transactions, we entered into several agreements with BNPP and BWHI, including the Master Reorganization Agreement. Although we have allocated liabilities between the Company and BNPP and its affiliates in accordance with these agreements, there is no guarantee that BNPP and its affiliates will meet their obligations under these agreements. If BWHI or its subsidiaries were to default in payment of any obligations owed to a third party pursuant to a contract covered by the Master Reorganization Agreement or the Transitional Services Agreement referred to in the Master Reorganization Agreement, we could be liable under the applicable provisions of such contract with a third party and be required to make additional payments in excess of what we expected to pay under the Master Reorganization Agreement or the Transitional Services Agreement. Any such increased liability resulting from BNPP’s and its affiliates’ failure to meet their obligations under these agreements could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, result of operations or cash flows.

 

In addition, pursuant to the Master Reorganization Agreement, BWHI has agreed to indemnify us for certain liabilities, and we have agreed to indemnify BWHI for certain liabilities, in each case for uncapped amounts, and there can be no assurance that the indemnity from BWHI will be sufficient to protect us against the full amount of such liabilities, or that BWHI will be able to fully satisfy its indemnification obligations. Indemnity payments that we may be required to

provide BWHI may be significant and could negatively impact our business. Moreover, even if we ultimately succeed in recovering from BWHI any amounts for which we are held liable, we may be temporarily required to bear these losses ourselves.

 

We may be subject to unexpected income tax liabilities in connection with the Reorganization Transactions. BWHI is required to pay us for any unexpected income tax liabilities that arise in connection with the Reorganization Transactions. However, in the event that BWHI does not satisfy its payment obligations, we could be subject to significantly higher federal and/or state and local income tax liabilities than currently anticipated.

 

BNPP, BWHI and we expect that no U.S. federal income taxes will be imposed on us in connection with the Reorganization Transactions. However, we paid state and local income taxes of approximately $95.4 million in June 2016 (which we expect to be partially offset by an expected federal tax reduction of approximately $33.4 million in 2017) in connection with the Reorganization Transactions (the “Expected Taxes”). We could, however, be subject to higher income tax liabilities in the event that our income tax liabilities required to be shown on the tax returns in respect of the Reorganization Transactions are higher than the Expected Taxes or the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or state and local tax authorities successfully assert that our income tax liabilities in respect of the Reorganization Transactions are higher than the Expected Taxes. Under the terms of the Tax Sharing Agreement, BWHI is required to pay us for any such additional taxes on an “after‑tax basis” (which means an amount determined by reducing the payment amount by any tax benefits derived by the Company and increasing the payment amount by any tax costs, including additional taxes, incurred by the Company as a result of such additional taxes and/or payments). See “Our Relationship with BNPP and Certain Other Related Party Transactions — Relationship with BNPP — Tax Sharing Agreement.” If, however, our income tax liabilities in respect of the Reorganization Transactions are higher than the Expected Taxes and BWHI fails to satisfy its payment obligations under the Tax Sharing Agreement or if we are not eligible for or otherwise do not receive the expected federal tax reduction in 2017, we could be liable for significantly higher federal and/or state income tax liabilities. Under the Tax Sharing Agreement, in the event that our income tax liability is lower than the Expected Taxes, we are required to pay BWHI for any such difference (minus the U.S. federal income tax cost to the Company resulting from such difference). We have not sought and will not seek any rulings from the IRS or state and local tax authorities regarding our expected tax treatment of the Reorganization Transactions.

 

In addition, under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and related rules and regulations, each entity that was a member of the BancWest combined tax reporting group during any taxable period or portion of any taxable period ending on or before the effective time of the Reorganization Transactions is jointly and severally liable for the U.S. federal income tax liability of the entire combined tax reporting group for such taxable period. Although the Tax Sharing Agreement allocates the responsibility for prior period taxes of the combined tax reporting group in accordance with the existing tax allocation agreements, if BWHI were unable to pay any such prior period taxes for which it is responsible, we could be required to pay the entire amount of such taxes, and such amounts could be significant. Other provisions of federal, state or local tax law may establish similar liability for other matters, including laws governing tax qualified pension plans, as well as other contingent liabilities.

 

We continue to be subject to regulation and supervision as a subsidiary of BNPP.

 

As long as we continue to be controlled by BNPP for purposes of the BHC Act, BNPP’s regulatory status may impact our regulatory status. For example, unsatisfactory examination ratings or enforcement actions regarding BNPP could impact our ability to obtain or preclude us from obtaining any necessary approvals or informal clearance to engage in new activities. To the extent that we are required to obtain regulatory approvals under the BHC Act to make acquisitions or expand our activities, as long as BNPP controls us, BNPP would be required to obtain BHC Act approvals for such acquisitions or activities as well. The Federal Reserve may determine that BNPP controls us until its ownership and control falls to less than 5.0% of any class of voting securities, or even to zero percent. Prior to the Reorganization Transactions, BancWest had total consolidated assets of $50 billion or more and was subject to enhanced supervision and prudential standards. As a result, we currently are subject to a number of laws and regulations applicable to bank holding companies of that size. See “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Enhanced Prudential Standards.” In particular, the enhanced prudential standards implemented under the Dodd‑Frank Act applicable to bank holding companies with over $50 billion in assets have had a significant impact on the business results and operations of such institutions, and this in turn may impact us as a controlled subsidiary of BNPP. These enhanced prudential standards include capital, leverage, liquidity and risk‑management requirements that would not apply to us as a standalone company with less than $50 billion in assets. We expect these laws and regulations will cease to apply to us when BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes falls to a level at which those laws and regulations as applicable to the U.S. entities of BNPP

no longer apply to us. As noted above, it is possible that BNPP’s ownership and control of us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes may need to fall to less than 5.0% of any class of our voting securities, or even to zero, before all such laws and regulations will cease to apply to us. See “— Risks Related to the Regulatory Oversight of Our Business — We are subject to capital adequacy requirements and may be subject to more stringent capital requirements,” “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Enhanced Prudential Standards” and “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Regulatory Impact of Control by BNPP.”

 

Furthermore, if BNPP fails or goes into recovery or resolution, such event could have a material adverse effect on our business.

 

As described in “Item 1. Business - Supervision and Regulation — Regulatory Impact of Control by BNPP,” BNPP is required to submit annually to its applicable regulators a Group Recovery and Resolution Plan under Directive 2014/59. In the event BNPP is subject to resolution proceedings or resolution powers by its applicable regulators, actions taken by such regulators may result in significant structural or other changes to BNPP and/or its controlled subsidiaries, including changes that may adversely affect us.

 

As long as BNPP owns a majority of our common stock, we will rely on certain exemptions from the corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ available for “controlled companies.”

 

We are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the corporate governance listing standards of NASDAQ because BNPP owns more than 50% of our outstanding common stock. A controlled company may elect not to comply with certain corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ. Consistent with this, the Stockholder Agreement provides that, so long as we are a controlled company, we are not required to comply with the requirements to have a majority of independent directors or to have the corporate governance and nominating committee and the compensation committee of our board of directors consist entirely of independent directors. Currently, six of our nine directors do not qualify as “independent directors” under the applicable rules of NASDAQ. As a result, stockholders in the Company do not have certain of the protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the corporate governance requirements of NASDAQ.

 

BNPP may not complete the divestiture of our common stock that it beneficially owns.

 

BNPP currently beneficially owns approximately 62% of our outstanding common stock. The timing of any subsequent sales by BNPP of shares of our common stock is unknown at this time and will be subject to market conditions and other considerations as well as a lock‑up agreement by the BNPP selling stockholder. There can be no assurance of the time period over which such disposition will occur or that it will occur at all. Any delay by BNPP in completing, or uncertainty about its ability or intention to complete, the divestiture of our common stock that it beneficially owns could have a material adverse effect on our company and the market price for our common stock.

 

Conflicts of interest and other disputes may arise between BNPP and us that may be resolved in a manner unfavorable to us and our other stockholders.

 

Conflicts of interest and other disputes may arise between BNPP and us in connection with our past and ongoing relationships, and any future relationships we may establish in a number of areas, including, but not limited to, the following:

 

 

 

 

 

These and other conflicts of interest and potential disputes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations or on the market price of our common stock.

 

Certain of our subsidiaries are subject to regulatory requirements and restrictions as a result of enforcement actions brought against BNPP in 2014.

 

On June 30, 2014, BNPP announced a comprehensive settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”), the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, the New York County District Attorney’s Office (the “DANY”), the Federal Reserve, the New York State Department of Financial Services and OFAC relating to violations of certain U.S. laws and regulations regarding economic sanctions against certain countries and related recordkeeping requirements (the “Settlement”). The Settlement includes guilty pleas entered into by BNPP with each of the DOJ and the DANY. The guilty pleas related to Sudan, Iran and Cuba; BNPP’s settlement with OFAC concerned these three countries as well as Burma. Certain of our subsidiaries are subject to ongoing requirements and restrictions as a result of the Settlement.

 

Exemption from Loss of Qualified Professional Asset Manager Status.

 

Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84‑14 (the “QPAM Exemption”) permits asset managers which qualify as Qualified Professional Asset Managers (“QPAMs”) within the meaning of the QPAM Exemption and meet each of the conditions of the QPAM Exemption to engage in a variety of arm’s length transactions with parties in interest that would otherwise be prohibited under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), and the “Code”. One of the conditions is that no entity owning 5% or more of the QPAM nor controlling, controlled by or under common control with such entity has been convicted of or plead guilty to the crimes enumerated in the Section I(g) of the QPAM Exemption in the preceding ten years. When BNPP entered into guilty pleas with the DOJ and the DANY, all asset managers affiliated with BNPP became ineligible to use the exemption. Accordingly, BNPP filed an application for an individual exemption to permit the use of the QPAM Exemption for its affiliated managers’ ERISA and Individual Retirement Account clients.

 

In April 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor granted an individual exemption (the “DOL Exemption”), allowing BNPP‑affiliated QPAMs to continue to rely on the QPAM Exemption, despite BNPP entering into guilty pleas with the DOJ and the DANY, provided that certain conditions are satisfied. These conditions include: (1) each QPAM may not direct an investment fund that is subject to ERISA and managed by such QPAM to enter into any transaction with BNPP or engage BNPP to provide additional services to such investment fund; (2) each QPAM will ensure that none of its employees or agents, if any, that were involved in the criminal conduct that underlies the convictions against BNPP will

engage in transactions on behalf of any investment fund that is subject to ERISA and managed by such QPAM; (3) each QPAM must immediately develop, implement, maintain and follow certain required written policies; (4) each QPAM must immediately develop and implement a required annual training program; (5) each QPAM must submit to an audit conducted annually by an independent auditor; and (6) each QPAM must maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of the DOL Exemption have been met for six years following the date of any transaction for which the QPAM relied on the DOL Exemption. Two of our subsidiaries, the Bank and its wholly‑owned subsidiary Bishop Street Capital Management, are QPAMs affected by the conditions of the DOL Exemption. Until such time as the Bank and Bishop Street Capital Management are no longer controlled by BNPP for purposes of the BHC Act, the conditions of the DOL Exemption will continue to apply to the Bank and Bishop Street Capital Management. The Federal Reserve may determine that BNPP controls us for U.S. bank regulatory purposes until its ownership and control falls to less than 5.0% of any class of our voting securities or even to zero percent.

 

Exemption from Section 9(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Investment Company Act”).

 

Section 9(a)(1) of the Investment Company Act prohibits a person, or an affiliated person of such a person, from, among other things, being an investment adviser of any registered investment company or principal underwriter of any registered open‑end investment company if the person, within the last ten years, has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to any felony or misdemeanor arising out of such person’s conduct as, among other things, a bank.

 

Certain investment adviser affiliates of BNPP, including our indirect wholly‑owned subsidiary Bishop Street Capital Management, applied for an exemption from the prohibition of section 9(a) of the Investment Company Act in connection with BNPP’s guilty pleas with the DOJ and the DANY. The exemptive order was granted by the SEC (the “SEC Exemption”) and is subject to certain conditions, including that BNPP will comply in all material respects with the conditions of the Settlement. Until the earlier of (a) such time as we are no longer an affiliated person of BNPP for purposes of the Investment Company Act, and (b) June 30, 2024 these conditions will continue to apply to Bishop Street Capital Management or any other of our affiliates that engages in the activities named in Section 9(a) of the Investment Company Act. For these purposes, we will continue to be an affiliated person of BNPP so long as it owns 5% or more of our voting securities or otherwise directly or indirectly controls or is under common control with us.

 

If our above‑referenced subsidiaries or another covered BNPP affiliate violates the terms of either the DOL Exemption or the SEC Exemption, our subsidiaries may be prohibited from engaging in significant aspects of their respective businesses, which could in turn have a negative impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations. Furthermore, entities with which our subsidiaries would ordinarily do business may refrain from engaging with them while they are subject to the terms of the DOL Exemption and the SEC Exemption. This could harm our reputation and have a negative impact on our business.

 

Risks Related to Our Common Stock

 

Our stock price may be volatile, and you could lose part or all of your investment as a result.

 

Stock price volatility may make it more difficult for you to resell your common stock when you want and at prices you find attractive. Our stock price may fluctuate significantly in response to a variety of factors including, among other things:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If any of the foregoing occurs, it could cause our stock price to fall and may expose us to litigation that, even if our defense is successful, could distract our management and be costly to defend. General market fluctuations, industry factors and general economic and political conditions and events — such as economic slowdowns or recessions, interest rate changes or credit loss trends — could also cause our stock price to decrease regardless of operating results.

 

We are an emerging growth company within the meaning of the Securities Act and because we have decided to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting and other requirements applicable to emerging growth companies, our common stock could be less attractive to investors.

 

For as long as we remain an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012 (the “JOBS Act”), we will have the option to take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting and other requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including not being required to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes‑Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes‑Oxley”), reduced disclosure obligations regarding executive compensation in our registration statements, periodic reports and proxy statements and exemptions from the requirements of holding a nonbinding advisory vote on executive compensation and stockholder approval of any golden parachute payments not previously approved. We have elected to, and expect to continue to, take advantage of certain of these and other exemptions until we are no longer an emerging growth company.

 

We will remain an emerging growth company until the earliest of (i) the end of the fiscal year during which we have total annual gross revenues of $1.0 billion or more, (ii) the end of the fiscal year following the fifth anniversary of our IPO, (iii) the date on which we have, during the previous three‑year period, issued more than $1.0 billion in non‑convertible debt, and (iv) the end of the first fiscal year in which (A) the market value of our equity securities that are held by non‑affiliates exceeds $700 million as of June 30 of that year, (B) we have been a public reporting company under the Exchange Act for at least twelve calendar months and (C) we have filed at least one annual report on Form 10‑K. We expect that we will cease to be an emerging growth company at the end of our 2017 fiscal year.

 

Fulfilling our public company financial reporting and other regulatory obligations and transitioning to a standalone public company will be expensive and time consuming and may strain our resources.

 

As a public company, we are subject to the reporting requirements of the Exchange Act and are required to implement specific corporate governance practices and adhere to a variety of reporting requirements under Sarbanes‑Oxley and the related rules and regulations of the SEC, as well as the rules of NASDAQ. The Exchange Act requires us to file annual, quarterly and current reports with respect to our business and financial condition. Sarbanes‑Oxley requires, among other things, that we maintain effective disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. Compliance with these requirements places additional demands on our legal, accounting, finance and investor relations staff and on our accounting, financial and information systems and may further increase our legal and accounting compliance costs as well as our compensation expense as we may be required to hire additional legal, accounting, tax, finance and investor relations staff. As a newly public company we may also need to enhance our investor relations and corporate communications functions and attract additional qualified board members. These additional efforts may strain

our resources and divert management’s attention from other business concerns, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations. We have incurred and expect to incur additional incremental ongoing and one‑time expenses in connection with our transition to a standalone public company and our separation from BNPP. The actual amount of the incremental expenses we will incur may be higher, perhaps significantly, from our current estimates for a number of reasons, including, among others, the final terms we are able to negotiate with service providers prior to the termination of the Transitional Services Agreement, as well as additional costs we may incur that we have not currently anticipated.

 

In accordance with Section 404 of Sarbanes‑Oxley, beginning in 2017 and with respect to our annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2017, our management will be required to conduct an annual assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and include a report on these internal controls in the annual reports we file with the SEC on Form 10‑K. Our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to formally attest to the effectiveness of our internal controls until the later of the year following the first annual report required to be filed with the SEC and the date on which we are no longer an “emerging growth company,” which we expect will be December 31, 2017. When required, this process will require significant documentation of policies, procedures and systems, review of that documentation by our internal auditing and accounting staff and our outside independent registered public accounting firm, and testing of our internal control over financial reporting by our internal auditing and accounting staff and our outside independent registered public accounting firm. This process will involve considerable time and attention, may strain our internal resources, and will increase our operating costs. We may experience higher than anticipated operating expenses and outside auditor fees during the implementation of these changes and thereafter. If our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to express an opinion as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors may lose confidence in the accuracy and completeness of our financial reports and the market price of our common stock could be negatively affected, and we could become subject to investigations by NASDAQ, the SEC or other regulatory authorities, which could require additional financial and management resources.

 

If we are not able to implement the requirements of Section 404 of Sarbanes‑Oxley in a timely and capable manner, we may be subject to adverse regulatory consequences and there could be a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of investor confidence in us and the reliability of our financial statements. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

The financial reporting resources we have put in place may not be sufficient to ensure the accuracy of the additional information we are required to disclose as a publicly listed company.

 

Following our IPO, we transitioned from being a wholly‑owned subsidiary of a large publicly listed entity to becoming a publicly listed company in our own right. As such, we are subject to the heightened financial reporting standards under GAAP and SEC rules, including more extensive levels of disclosure, which require enhancements to the design and operation of our internal control over financial reporting.

 

If we are unable to meet the demands that have been placed upon us as a public company, including the requirements of Sarbanes‑Oxley, we may be unable to accurately report our financial results, or report them within the timeframes required by law or stock exchange regulations. Failure to comply with Sarbanes‑Oxley, when and as applicable, could also potentially subject us to sanctions or investigations by the SEC or other regulatory authorities. If material weaknesses or other deficiencies occur, our ability to accurately and timely report our financial position could be impaired, which could result in late filings of our annual and quarterly reports under the Exchange Act, restatements of our consolidated financial statements, a decline in our stock price, suspension or delisting of our common stock from NASDAQ, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations or financial condition. Even if we are able to report our financial statements accurately and in a timely manner, any failure in our efforts to implement the improvements or disclosure of material weaknesses in our future filings with the SEC could cause our reputation to be harmed and our stock price to decline significantly.

 

We have not performed an evaluation of our internal control over financial reporting, as contemplated by Section 404 of Sarbanes‑Oxley, nor have we engaged our independent registered public accounting firm to perform an audit of our internal control over financial reporting as of any balance sheet date reported in our financial statements. Had we performed such an evaluation or had our independent registered public accounting firm performed an audit of our internal control over financial reporting, control deficiencies, including material weaknesses and significant deficiencies, may have been identified. In addition, the JOBS Act provides that, so long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company,” we will be exempt from the provisions of Section 404(b) of Sarbanes‑Oxley, which would require that our

independent registered public accounting firm provide an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. We may take advantage of this exemption so long as we qualify as an “emerging growth company.” We expect that we will cease to be an emerging growth company at the end of our 2017 fiscal year.

 

Future sales and issuances of our common stock, including expected sales by BNPP or as part of our equity-based compensation plans, could result in dilution of the percentage ownership of our stockholders and could lower our stock price.

 

The market price of our common stock could decline as a result of sales of a large number of shares of our common stock or from the perception that such sales could occur. These sales, or the possibility that these sales may occur, also may make it more difficult for us to raise additional capital by selling equity securities in the future, at a time and price that we deem appropriate. As of February 28, 2017, we have a total of 139,546,615 shares of common stock outstanding, of which approximately 62% continues to be beneficially owned by BNPP and will be restricted securities as defined under Rule 144 subject to certain restrictions on resale.  

 

We have agreed with the underwriters of our first secondary offering not to offer, pledge, sell or otherwise dispose of or hedge any shares of our common stock, subject to certain exceptions, for a 90 day period following January 31, 2017, the date of the prospectus used in that offering, without the prior consent of Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated and J.P. Morgan Securities LLC on behalf of the underwriters. BNPP, the BNPP selling stockholder and our executive officers and directors have entered into similar lock‑up agreements with the underwriters. The underwriters may, at any time, release us, BNPP, the BNPP selling stockholder or any of our executive officers or directors from these lock‑up agreements and allow us to sell shares of our common stock within this 90‑day period.

 

Upon the expiration of the lock‑up agreements described above, all of such shares will be eligible for resale in a public market, subject, in the case of shares held by our affiliates, to volume, manner of sale and other limitations under Rule 144 or registration under the Securities Act. BNPP is now considered an affiliate based on its beneficial ownership of our common stock, as well as its rights under the Stockholder Agreement.

 

In connection with our IPO and first secondary offering, we entered into a Registration Rights Agreement with BNPP that grants BNPP demand and “piggyback” registration rights with respect to the shares of our common stock beneficially owned by BNPP. BNPP may exercise its demand and piggyback registration rights at any time, subject to certain limitations, and any shares of our common stock registered pursuant to BNPP’s registration rights will be freely tradable in the public market, other than any shares acquired by any of our affiliates.

 

As restrictions on resale end, the market price of our shares of common stock could drop significantly. The timing and manner of the sale of BNPP’s remaining beneficial ownership of our common stock remains uncertain, and we have no control over the timing and manner in which BNPP may seek to divest such remaining shares. BNPP could elect to sell its common stock in a number of different ways, including in one or more tranches via future registrations or, alternatively, by the sale of all or a significant tranche of such remaining shares to a single third party purchaser. Any such sales would impact the price of our shares of common stock and there can be no guarantee that the price at which BNPP is willing to sell its remaining shares will be at a level that you determine adequately values our shares of common stock.

 

We have also filed a registration statement to register 6,253,385 shares of our common stock for issuance pursuant to awards granted under the equity incentive and employee stock purchase plans. We have granted awards covering 404,028 shares of our common stock under these plans as of December 31, 2016. We may increase the number of shares registered for this purpose from time to time, subject to stockholder approval. Once we register and issue these shares, their holders will be able to sell them in the public market, subject to applicable transfer restrictions.

 

We cannot predict the size of future issuances or sales of our common stock or the effect, if any, that future issuances or sales of shares of our common stock may have on the market price of our common stock. Sales or distributions of substantial amounts of our common stock (including shares issued in connection with an acquisition), or the perception that such sales could occur, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

 

BNPP could sell a controlling interest in us to a third party in a private transaction, which may not lead to your realization of any change‑of‑control premium on shares of our common stock and would subject us to the control of a presently unknown third party.

 

BNPP continues to beneficially own a controlling equity interest of our company. BNPP will have the ability, should it choose to do so, to cause the sale of some or all of its shares of FHI common stock in a privately negotiated transaction, which, if sufficient in size, could result in a change of control of our company.

 

The ability of BNPP to privately sell its shares of our common stock, with no requirement for a concurrent offer to be made to acquire all of the shares of our outstanding common stock that will be publicly traded hereafter, could prevent you from realizing any change‑of‑control premium on your shares of our common stock that may accrue to BNPP on its private sale of our common stock. In addition, if BNPP privately sells its significant equity interest in our company, we may become subject to the control of a presently unknown third party. Such third party may have interests that conflict with those of other stockholders. Such a change in control may adversely affect our ability to operate our business as described in this Form 10-K and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

 

Certain banking laws and certain provisions of our certificate of incorporation may have an anti‑takeover effect.

 

Provisions of federal banking laws, including regulatory approval requirements, could make it difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if doing so would be perceived to be beneficial to our stockholders. Acquisition of 10% or more of any class of voting stock of a bank holding company or depository institution, including shares of our common stock following completion of this offering, generally creates a rebuttable presumption that the acquirer “controls” the bank holding company or depository institution. Also, a bank holding company must obtain the prior approval of the Federal Reserve before, among other things, acquiring direct or indirect ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any bank, including our bank.

 

There also are provisions in our second amended and restated certificate of incorporation, which we refer to as our certificate of incorporation, and second amended and restated bylaws, which we refer to as our bylaws, such as limitations on the ability to call a special meeting of our stockholders that may be used to delay or block a takeover attempt. In addition, our board of directors is authorized under our certificate of incorporation to issue shares of our preferred stock, and determine the rights, terms conditions and privileges of such preferred stock, without stockholder approval. These provisions may effectively inhibit a non‑negotiated merger or other business combination, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

 

ITEM 1B.  UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

 

Not applicable.

 

ITEM 2.    PROPERTIES

 

Our corporate headquarters and main branch is located at 999 Bishop Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. In addition to our main branch, we operated 62 branch offices located on the islands of Oahu, Maui, Hawaii, Kauai, Guam and Saipan as of December 31, 2016. We lease 37 of our branch offices and own the remainder of our offices, including our corporate headquarters and main branch which is located in the First Hawaiian Center. We are currently in the process of evaluating plans for more efficient usage of square footage, modernization and technological improvements to existing branches. We have closed and may close branches in certain circumstances to improve our efficiency.

 

ITEM 3.    LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

 

We operate in a highly regulated environment. From time to time, we are a party to various litigation matters incidental to the conduct of our business. We are not presently party to any legal proceedings the resolution of which we believe would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity, results of operation, cash flows, or capital levels. For additional information, see the discussion related to contingencies in “Note 18. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities” in our consolidated financial statements under “Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”

 

ITEM 4.    MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

 

Not applicable.

 

PART II

 

ITEM 5.    MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

 

FHI’s common stock is listed on the NASDAQ under the symbol “FHB” and is quoted daily in leading financial publications. The following table sets forth the range of high and low sales prices of our common stock as reported on the NASDAQ for periods following our IPO on August 4, 2016. Dividends declared are also shown in the table below for periods following our IPO. See “Item 1. Supervision and Regulation – Dividends” for more information.

 

 

As of February 28, 2017, there were 16 common registered shareholders of record. A registered shareholder of record is a shareholder whose share ownership in a company is recorded directly on the records of the company’s stock transfer agent. If one owns company shares through a bank, broker or other intermediary, then that shareholder is considered a “beneficial” shareholder. These holdings are considered to be held in “street name” through a bank, broker, or other intermediary and in the aggregate, are registered as a single shareholder of record.

 

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

 

We did not have a share repurchase plan at December 31, 2016. During the year ended December 31, 2016, 6,003 shares were purchased from employees in connection with income tax withholdings related to the vesting of restricted stock awards. These shares were not purchased as part of a publicly announced program.

 

Performance Graph

 

The following graph displays the cumulative total stockholder return on our common stock based on the market price of the common stock compared to the cumulative total returns for the Standard & Poor’s (“S&P”) 500 Index and the KBW Regional Banking Index. The graph assumes that $100 was invested on our IPO date, August 4, 2016, in our stock, the S&P 500 Index and the KBW Regional Banking Index. The cumulative total return on each investment is as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and assumes reinvestment of dividends.

 

 

The stock performance depicted in the graph above should not be relied upon as indicative of future performance.

ITEM 6.    SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

 

 

 

The following table provides a reconciliation of net interest income, noninterest income, noninterest expense and net income to their “core” non-GAAP financial measures: