​

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, 2020

​

OR

​

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

​

For the transition period from               to               

​

Commission File Number  001-14585

​

FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.

(Exact 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:

​

​

Securities Registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the 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 or 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 such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes  ☒  No  ☐

​

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes  ☒  No  ☐

​

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

​

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management’s assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).   ☐  Yes    ☒  No

​

As of June 30, 2020, the aggregate market value of the registrant’s voting shares held by non-affiliates was approximately $2.2 billion, based on the closing sale price of $17.24 as reported on the NASDAQ Global Select Market.

​

As of February 23, 2021, there were 130,919,200 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

​

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the First Hawaiian, Inc. Proxy Statement for its 2021 Annual Meeting of Stockholders are incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K in response to Part III, Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.

​

​

​

Table of Contents

​

​

​

​

TABLE OF CONTENTS

​

FIRST HAWAIIAN, INC.

FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Table of Contents

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.

FHI is 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, 2020, we had $22.7 billion of assets, $13.3 billion of gross loans and leases, $19.2 billion of deposits and $2.7 billion of stockholders’ equity. We generated $185.8 million of net income or diluted earnings per share of $1.43 per share for the year ended December 31, 2020.

Through the Bank, we operate a network of 54 branches in Hawaii (49 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 23. Reportable Operating Segments” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for more information.

Human Capital Resources

​

As of December 31, 2020, we had over 2,100 employees, which included full time employees, part time employees and temporary employees, primarily located in our key markets of Hawaii, Guam and Saipan. The average tenure of employees at our Company is 12.5 years. Through ongoing employee development, diversity in the workforce and a focus on health, safety and employee wellbeing, we strive to help our employees in all aspects of their lives. We believe our relationship with our employees to be generally good. 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.

Training and Development

Learning and development are foundational to our purpose as an institution. We invest in attracting, developing and retaining the best talent. Our innovative talent development and employee learning courses are woven into our strategy and corporate culture. We offer 12 leadership development programs in total and over 90 professional development courses for employees through an Online Learning Center.

Table of Contents

Diversity and Inclusion

We believe that employing a diverse workforce enhances our ability to serve our customers and our communities. By promoting a workforce that we believe is reflective of our customers and communities, we believe that we may better understand the financial needs of our customers and provide them with relevant financial service products.

Our commitment to diversity and inclusion starts at the top with a diverse board. As of the date of this report, our FHI Board of Directors include three women, representing 38% of directors, and five ethnically diverse individuals, representing 63% of directors. As of December 31, 2020, 66% of our employees were women, including 55% of our employees in management positions, and 88% of our workforce were ethnically diverse.

Health, Safety and Wellness

We recognize that each employee’s benefit needs may differ and have designed our benefits program to be flexible. We offer healthcare options for employees aimed at reducing out-of-pocket costs. Additionally, the Bank adapted many of its operations to enhance the health and safety of our employees due to the Coronavirus Disease (“COVID-19”) pandemic. To create greater social distancing within our facilities, we adopted work-from-home programs for hundreds of employees, allowing over 50% of our employees to work from home. Within our facilities we have also increased sanitization protocols, installed plexiglass barriers and hand-sanitizing stations, and implemented daily wellness and temperature checks for all employees. For the health and safety of everyone, we also require anyone in our facilities to social distance and wear face coverings.

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. 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.

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, such as financial technology firms, to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfers and automatic payment systems, without the need of physical branches.

Organizational History and Structure

Prior to our initial public offering in August 2016 (“IPO”), we were an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas (“BNPP”), a global financial institution based in France.  

On April 1, 2016, BNPP effected a series of reorganization transactions (“Reorganization Transactions”), as a part of which 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 requirements applicable to BNPP, 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.

Table of Contents

In August 2016, FHI completed its IPO and shares of FHI’s common stock began trading on the NASDAQ Global Select Market (“NASDAQ”) under the ticker symbol “FHB”.

In February 2019, BNPP fully exited its ownership interest in FHI common stock.

Supervision and Regulation

We are subject to extensive regulation under federal and state banking laws that establish a comprehensive framework for our operations. This regulatory framework may materially impact our growth potential and financial performance and is intended primarily for the protection of the safety and soundness of financial institutions, maintenance of the federal deposit insurance system and the protection of consumers or classes of consumers, rather than the protection of 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. These statutes, regulations and policies are continually under review by Congress and state legislatures and federal and state regulatory agencies.

Regulatory Agencies

FHI is a bank holding company under the U.S. Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (the “BHC Act”) and has elected to be treated as a financial holding company under the BHC Act. Consequently, FHI and its subsidiaries 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 well-capitalized and well-managed 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. In addition, if any insured depository institution subsidiary of a financial holding company fails to maintain a CRA rating of at least “Satisfactory,” the financial holding company will be subject to restrictions on certain new activities and acquisitions.

FHB is a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “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.

Table of Contents

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, FHI 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. The Company is subject to numerous other statutes and regulations that affect its business activities and operations.

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 accepting deposits; extending loans and lines 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 common stock and additional paid-in capital).

Table of Contents

Enhanced Prudential Standards

The Dodd-Frank Act, as amended by the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (“EGRRCPA”), directs the Federal Reserve to monitor emerging risks to financial stability and enact enhanced supervision and prudential standards. As a bank holding company with less than $50 billion in total consolidated assets, the Dodd-Frank Act’s enhanced prudential standards are not applicable to FHI. Prior to the passage of the EGRRCPA, the Dodd-Frank Act and Federal Reserve rules required publicly traded bank holding companies with $10 billion or more in total consolidated assets to establish risk committees. FHI established a risk committee in accordance with this requirement. In October 2019, the Federal Reserve adopted a rule that tailors the application of the enhanced prudential standards to BHCs per the EGRRCPA amendments, including by raising the asset threshold for application of many of these standards. Pursuant to the final rule, publicly traded bank holding companies with between $10 billion and $50 billion of total consolidated assets, including FHI, are no longer required to maintain a risk committee. However, FHI has determined that it will retain its risk committee. For bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $100 billion or more, the applicability of the enhanced prudential standards depends on their “category,” as determined under the October 2019 tailoring rules.

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 applicable laws, including 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, the Federal Reserve will consider the extent to which a proposed 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 and Repurchases

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.

Table of Contents

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 a bank may not exceed the bank’s retained earnings provided that the bank will, after the dividend, have the minimum paid-in common stock and additional paid-in capital 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 common stock and additional paid-in capital 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 and Common Stock Repurchases by the Company. As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to oversight by the Federal Reserve. In particular, the dividend policies and share repurchases of the Company are reviewed by the Federal Reserve and will be assessed against, among other things, the Company’s ability to achieve the required capital ratios under applicable capital rules (including the applicable capital conservation buffer). In addition, the Federal Reserve has indicated generally that it may be an unsafe or unsound practice for bank holding companies to pay dividends unless a bank holding company’s net income is sufficient to fund the dividends and the expected rate of earnings retention is consistent with the organization’s capital needs, asset quality and overall financial condition. Federal Reserve guidance also indicates that declaring or paying a dividend that exceeds earnings for the period (e.g., quarterly) for which the dividend is being paid could raise supervisory concerns.  See “— Regulatory Capital Requirements” below.

In certain circumstances, the Company’s repurchases of its common stock may be subject to a prior approval or notice requirement under other regulations or policies of the Federal Reserve. Any redemption or repurchase of preferred stock or subordinated debt remains subject to the prior approval of the Federal Reserve.

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, the acceptance of securities issued by the affiliate as collateral for a loan, the issuance of a guarantee, acceptance or letter of credit on behalf of an affiliate, and credit exposure arising under derivative transactions, repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements, and securities borrowing and lending transactions. 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.

Table of Contents

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 Company 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 Company 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 Company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the Company 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.

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. The Company and the Bank are subject to the federal bank regulators’ final rules implementing Basel III and various provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act (the “Capital Rules”).

The Capital Rules, among other things, impose a capital measure called “Common Equity Tier 1” (“CET1”), to which most deductions/adjustments to regulatory capital must be made. In addition, the Capital Rules specify that Tier 1 capital consists of CET1 and “Additional Tier 1 capital” instruments meeting certain specified requirements.

Under the Capital Rules, the minimum capital ratios are as follows:

The Capital Rules also require a 2.5% 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, 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.

Banking institutions with a ratio of CET1 to risk-weighted assets above the minimum but below the capital conservation buffer face constraints on dividends, equity repurchases and certain discretionary compensation based on the amount of the shortfall and the institution’s “eligible retained income” (since March 2020, defined as the greater of (i) net income for the four preceding quarters, net of distributions and associated tax effects not reflected in net income; and (ii) the average of net income over the preceding four quarters), with progressively more stringent constraints as the Company approaches the minimum ratios.

The Capital Rules provide for a number of deductions from and adjustments to CET1 that were phased-in. These include, for example, the requirement that mortgage servicing rights (“MSRs”), certain deferred tax assets (“DTAs”) 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. In November 2017, the federal bank regulators revised the Capital Rules to extend the transitional treatment of MSRs, certain DTAs, investments in non-consolidated financial entities and minority interests for non-advanced approaches banking organizations (the “Transition Rules”), including the Company and FHB.

Table of Contents

In July 2019, the federal bank regulators adopted rules intended to revise and simplify the capital treatment for MSRs, certain DTAs, investments in non-consolidated financial entities and minority interests for banking organizations, such as the Company and the Bank, that are not subject to the advanced approaches (the “Capital Simplification Rules”). The Capital Simplifications Rules and the rescission of the Transition Rule became effective for the Company as of April 1, 2020. In November 2019, the federal bank regulators issued a final rule revising the definition of “high volatility commercial real estate” exposures to exclude certain acquisition, development and construction loans, consistent with the definition in the EGRRCPA.

With respect to capital ratio requirements, the Bank is also subject to the prompt corrective action regulations pursuant to Section 38 of the FDIA. See “— Prompt Corrective Action Framework.”

In December 2017, the Basel Committee published standards that it described as the finalization of the Basel III post-crisis regulatory reforms (the standards are commonly referred to as “Basel IV”). Among other things, these standards revise the Basel Committee’s standardized approach for credit risk (including recalibrating risk weights and introducing new capital requirements for certain “unconditionally cancellable commitments,” such as unused credit card and home equity lines of credit) and provide a new standardized approach for operational risk capital. Under the Basel framework, these standards will generally be effective on January 1, 2023, with an aggregate output floor phasing in through January 1, 2028. Under the current U.S. Capital Rules, operational risk capital requirements and a capital floor apply only to advanced approaches institutions, and not to the Company or the Bank. The impact of Basel IV on the Company and the Bank will depend on the manner in which it is implemented by the federal bank regulators.

During 2020, federal bank regulators adopted a rule that allows banking organizations to elect to delay temporarily the estimated effects of adopting the current expected credit losses accounting standard (“CECL”) on regulatory capital until January 2022 and subsequently to phase in the effects through January 2025. Under the rule, during 2020 and 2021, the adjustment to CET1 capital reflects the change in retained earnings upon adoption of CECL at January 1, 2020, plus 25% of the increase in the allowance for credit losses since January 1, 2020.  See “Note 1. Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data for additional information about CECL.

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.

Table of Contents

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, 2020, the Bank met all capital ratio requirements to be well-capitalized with both a CET1 capital ratio and a Tier 1 capital ratio of 12.34%, total capital ratio of 13.60% and Tier 1 leverage ratio of 7.92%, in each case calculated under the Capital Rules. 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 meet all capital ratio requirements to be well-capitalized. As of December 31, 2020, the Company’s CET1 capital ratio and Tier 1 capital ratio was 12.47%, its total capital ratio was 13.73%, and its Tier 1 leverage ratio was 8.00%, in each case calculated under the Capital Rules. For more information on the Company’s and the Bank’s capital ratios, see “Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition — Capital” and “Note 13. Regulatory Capital Requirements” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.

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 generally subject to appointment of a receiver or conservator.

Table of Contents

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. In December 2020, the FDIC issued final rules intended to modernize its regulations on brokered deposits and interest rate restrictions. Under these regulations, effective April 1, 2021, a depository institution that is adequately capitalized and accepts brokered deposits under a waiver from the FDIC may not pay an interest rate on any deposit (i) in excess of 75 basis points over certain national rates described in the FDIC’s regulations, or (ii) 90% of the highest interest rate paid on a particular deposit product in the depository institution’s local market area if the institution provides notice to the FDIC and evidence of such local interest rate. 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” above. 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.

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. In addition, the FDIC is authorized to conduct examinations of and require reporting by FDIC-insured institutions.

The Volcker Rule

The Dodd-Frank Act and the implementing regulations of the federal regulators generally prohibit banks and their affiliates from engaging in proprietary trading and investing in and sponsoring hedge funds and private equity funds (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.

Table of Contents

In October 2019, the Federal Reserve, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”), FDIC, Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) and SEC finalized rules to tailor the application of the Volcker Rule based on the size and scope of a banking entity’s trading activities and to clarify and amend certain definitions, requirements and exemptions. In addition, in June 2020, these regulators finalized their previously proposed amendments to the Volcker Rule’s regulations relating to covered funds. These amendments established new exclusions from covered fund status for certain types of investment vehicles, modified the eligibility criteria for certain existing exclusions, and clarified and modified other provisions governing banking entities’ investments in and other transactions and relationships involving covered funds. These amendments became effective on October 1, 2020.

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 significant reputational harm as well as 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 CFPB is a federal agency with broad rulemaking, supervisory and enforcement powers under 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 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.

Table of Contents

The CFPB has 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.

In December 2019, the OCC and the FDIC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking intended to (i) clarify which activities qualify for CRA credit; (ii) update where activities count for CRA credit; (iii) create a more transparent and objective method for measuring CRA performance; and (iv) provide for more transparent, consistent, and timely CRA-related data collection, recordkeeping, and reporting. In May 2020, the OCC issued its final CRA rule. However, the FDIC did not join the OCC’s final rulemaking and has not yet finalized its CRA rule. We will continue to evaluate the impact of any changes to the FDIC’s regulations implementing the CRA.

Financial Privacy and Cybersecurity

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 an unaffiliated 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.

Federal banking regulators regularly issue guidance regarding cybersecurity intended to enhance cyber risk management standards among financial institutions. A financial institution is expected to establish multiple lines of defense and to ensure their risk management processes address the risk posed by potential threats to the institution. A financial institution’s management is expected to maintain sufficient processes to effectively respond and recover the institution’s operations after a cyberattack. A financial institution is also expected to develop appropriate processes to enable recovery of data and business operations if a critical service provider of the institution falls victim to this type of cyberattack. The Bank has adopted an information security program that has been approved by its board of directors and reviewed by its regulators.

In December 2020, the federal bank regulatory agencies released a proposed rule regarding notification requirements for banking organizations related to significant computer security incidents. Under the proposal, a bank holding company, such as FHI, and an FDIC-supervised insured depository institution, such as FHB, would be required to notify the Federal Reserve or FDIC, respectively, within 36 hours of incidents that could result in the banking organization’s inability to deliver services to a material portion of its customer base, jeopardize the viability of key operations of the banking organization, or impact the stability of the financial sector. The effects of this rulemaking on the Company and the Bank will depend on the final form of the rule and how it is implemented.

Table of Contents

State regulators have also been increasingly active in implementing privacy and cybersecurity standards and regulations. Recently, several states have adopted regulations requiring certain financial institutions to implement cybersecurity programs and providing detailed requirements with respect to these programs, including data encryption requirements. Many states have also recently implemented or modified their data breach notification and data privacy requirements. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act became effective on January 1, 2020. We expect this trend of state-level activity in those areas to continue and are continually monitoring developments in the states in which our customers are located.

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. Anti-money laundering laws, including the Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA”), as amended by the USA PATRIOT Act,  impose compliance and due diligence obligations, and financial institutions must take certain steps to assist government agencies in detecting and preventing money laundering and report certain types of suspicious transactions. 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. Regulatory authorities routinely examine financial institutions for compliance with these requirements, 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 financial, legal and reputational consequences for the institution, including the imposition of civil money penalties or 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 requirements.

In January 2021, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 (“AMLA”), which amends the BSA, was enacted. The AMLA is intended to comprehensively reform and modernize U.S. anti-money laundering laws. Among other things, the AMLA codifies a risk-based approach to anti-money laundering compliance for financial institutions; requires the development of standards by the U.S. Department of the Treasury for evaluating technology and internal processes for BSA compliance; and expands enforcement- and investigation-related authority, including a significant expansion in the available sanctions for certain BSA violations and instituting BSA whistleblower incentives and protections. Many of the statutory provisions in the AMLA will require additional rulemakings, reports and other measures, and the impact of the AMLA will depend on, among other things, rulemaking and implementation guidance.

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 financial, 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. Regulatory authorities have imposed cease and desist orders and civil money penalties against institutions found to be violating these sanctions.

Incentive Compensation

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.

Table of Contents

Under Federal Reserve and FDIC 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, 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 below.