Edgar Filing: BANK OF HAWAII CORP

BankofHawaii 10K 12.31.2012

UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K



(Mark One)
x		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
		For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
		OR
o		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 1-6887

BANK OF HAWAII CORPORATION
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)



Delaware (State of incorporation)		99-0148992 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii (Address of principal executive offices)		96813 (Zip Code)

1-888-643-3888
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

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



Title of Each Class		Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered
Common Stock, $.01 Par Value		New York Stock Exchange

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 x No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.

Yes o No x

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 x No o

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 (Section 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).

Yes x No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (Section 229.405 of this chapter) 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 amendment to this Form 10-K. o

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



Large accelerated filer x		Accelerated filer o
Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act).

Yes o No x

The aggregate market value of the registrant's outstanding voting common stock held by non-affiliates on June 30, 2012 (the last business day of the registrant's most recently completed second fiscal quarter), determined using the per share closing price on that date on the New York Stock Exchange of $45.95, was approximately $2,047,629,506. There was no non-voting common equity of the registrant outstanding on that date.

As of February 14, 2013, there were 44,868,440 shares of common stock outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the Proxy Statement relating to the 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be held on April 26, 2013, are incorporated by reference into Part III of this Report.

Table of Contents

Bank of Hawaii Corporation
2012 Form 10-K Annual Report
Table of Contents



	Item Number		Page

Part I	Item 1.	Business	2
	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	8
	Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	14
	Item 2.	Properties	14
	Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	14
	Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	14


Part II	Item 5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	15
	Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	17
	Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	19
	Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk	54
	Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	55
	Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements With Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	113
	Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	113
	Item 9B.	Other Information	115


Part III	Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	115
	Item 11.	Executive Compensation	115
	Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	115
	Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	115
	Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	115


Part IV	Item 15.	Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules	116
Signatures			119

Table of Contents

Part I

Item 1. Business

General

Bank of Hawaii Corporation (the "Parent") is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company ("BHC") headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The Parent's principal and only operating subsidiary, Bank of Hawaii (the "Bank"), was organized on December 17, 1897 and is chartered by the State of Hawaii. The Bank's deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the "FDIC") and the Bank is a member of the Federal Reserve System.

The Bank provides a broad range of financial services and products primarily to customers in Hawaii, Guam, and other Pacific Islands. References to "we," "our," "us," or "the Company" refer to the Parent and its subsidiaries that are consolidated for financial reporting purposes.

The Bank's subsidiaries include Bank of Hawaii Leasing, Inc., Bankoh Investment Services, Inc., and Pacific Century Life Insurance Corporation. The Bank's subsidiaries are engaged in equipment leasing, securities brokerage, investment services, and providing credit insurance.

We are organized into four business segments for management reporting purposes: Retail Banking, Commercial Banking, Investment Services, and Treasury and Other. See Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ("MD&A") and Note 13 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more 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.boh.com as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with or furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The SEC maintains a website, www.sec.gov, which contains reports, proxy and information statements, and other information regarding issuers that file electronically with the SEC. Our Corporate Governance Guidelines; charters of the Audit and Risk Committee, the Human Resources and Compensation Committee, and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee; and our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics are available on our website at www.boh.com. Printed copies of this information may be obtained, without charge, by written request to the Corporate Secretary at 130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, 96813.

The Parent's other subsidiary is the BOHC Investment Fund, LLC (the "Fund"). The Fund was organized in September 2007, to invest in and hold securities of Qualified High Technology Businesses, as defined in the Hawaii Revised Statutes.

Competition

The Company is subject to intense competition from traditional financial service providers including banks, savings associations, credit unions, mortgage companies, finance companies, mutual funds, brokerage firms, insurance companies, and other non-traditional providers of financial services including financial service subsidiaries of commercial and manufacturing companies. Some of our competitors are not subject to the same level of regulation and oversight that is required of banks and BHCs. As a result, some of our competitors may have lower cost structures. Also, some of our competitors, through alternative delivery channels such as the Internet, may be based outside of the markets that we serve. By emphasizing our extensive branch network, exceptional service levels, and knowledge of local trends and conditions, we believe the Company has developed an effective competitive advantage in its market.

Supervision and Regulation

Our operations are subject to extensive regulation by federal and state governmental authorities. The regulations are primarily intended to protect depositors, customers, and the integrity of the U.S. banking system and capital markets. The following information describes some of the more significant laws and regulations applicable to us. The description is qualified in its entirety by reference to the applicable laws and regulations. Proposals to change the laws and regulations governing the banking industry are frequently raised in Congress, in state legislatures, and with the various bank regulatory agencies. Changes in applicable laws or regulations, or a change in the way such laws or regulations are interpreted by regulatory agencies or courts, may have a material impact on our business, operations, and earnings.

Table of Contents

On July 21, 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the "Dodd-Frank Act") became effective. This law has broadly affected the financial services industry by implementing changes to the financial regulatory landscape aimed at strengthening the sound operation of the financial services industry, and will continue to significantly change the current bank regulatory structure and affect the lending, deposit, investment, trading and operating activities of financial institutions and their holding companies, including the Company and the Bank. Under the Dodd-Frank Act a broad range of new rules and regulations by various federal agencies have been implemented, and further rulemaking must be proposed and adopted which will take effect over several years. Although we have already experienced some decrease in revenue as a result of the rules implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act, it remains difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact the Dodd-Frank Act will have on the Company, our customers or the financial industry in general.

The Parent

The Parent is registered as a BHC under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the "BHC Act"), and is subject to the supervision of and to examination by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank (the "FRB"). The Parent is also registered as a financial institution holding company under the Hawaii Code of Financial Institutions (the "Code") and is subject to the registration, reporting, and examination requirements of the Code.

The BHC Act prohibits, with certain exceptions, a BHC from acquiring beneficial ownership or control of more than 5% of the voting shares of any company, including a bank, without the FRB's prior approval. The Act also prohibits a BHC from engaging in any activity other than banking, managing or controlling banks or other subsidiaries authorized under the BHC Act, or furnishing services to or performing services for its subsidiaries.

Under the BHC Act, a BHC may elect to become a financial holding company and thereby engage in a broader range of financial and other activities than are permissible for traditional BHCs. In order to qualify for the election, all of the depository institution subsidiaries of the BHC must be well-capitalized and well-managed. Additionally, all of its insured depository institution subsidiaries must have achieved a rating of "satisfactory" or better under the Community Reinvestment Act (the "CRA"). Financial holding companies are permitted to engage in activities that are "financial in nature"; activities incidental to or complementary of the financial activities of traditional BHCs, as determined by the FRB. The Parent has not elected to become a financial holding company.

Under FRB policy, a BHC is expected to serve as a source of financial and management strength to its subsidiary bank. A BHC is also expected to commit resources to support its subsidiary bank in circumstances where it might not do so absent such a policy. Under this policy, a BHC is expected to stand ready to provide adequate capital funds to its subsidiary bank during periods of financial adversity and to maintain the financial flexibility and capital-raising capacity to obtain additional resources for assisting its subsidiary bank.

Under the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, banks and bank holding companies from any state are permitted to acquire banks located in any other state, subject to certain conditions, including certain nationwide and state-imposed deposit concentration limits. The Bank also has the ability, subject to certain restrictions, to acquire branches outside its home state by acquisition or merger. The establishment of new interstate branches is also possible in those states with laws that expressly permit de novo branching. Because the Code permits de novo branching by out-of-state banks, those banks may establish new branches in Hawaii. Interstate branches are subject to certain laws of the states in which they are located.

Bank of Hawaii

The Bank is subject to supervision and examination by the FRB of San Francisco and the State of Hawaii Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs' ("DCCA") Division of Financial Institutions. The Bank is subject to extensive federal and state regulations that significantly affect business and activities. These regulatory bodies have broad authority to implement standards and to initiate proceedings designed to prohibit depository institutions from engaging in activities that represent unsafe or unsound banking practices or constitute violations of applicable laws, rules, regulations, administrative orders, or written agreements with regulators. The standards relate generally to operations and management, asset quality, interest rate exposure, capital, and executive compensation. These regulatory bodies are authorized to take action against institutions that fail to meet such standards, including the assessment of civil monetary penalties, the issuance of cease-and-desist orders, and other actions.

Bankoh Investment Services, Inc., the broker dealer subsidiary of the Bank, is incorporated in Hawaii and is regulated by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, and the DCCA's Business Registration Division. Pacific Century Life Insurance Corporation is incorporated in Arizona and is regulated by the State of Arizona Department of Insurance.

Table of Contents

Capital Requirements

The federal bank regulatory agencies have issued substantially similar risk-based and leverage capital guidelines applicable to BHCs and the banks they supervise. Under the risk-based capital requirements, the Company and the Bank are each generally required to maintain a minimum ratio of total capital to risk-weighted assets of 8% to be considered "adequately capitalized." At least half of the total capital is to be composed of common equity, retained earnings, and qualifying perpetual preferred stock, less certain intangibles ("Tier 1 Capital"). The remainder may consist of certain subordinated debt, certain hybrid capital instruments and other qualifying preferred stock, and a limited amount of the allowance for loan and lease losses ("Tier 2 Capital") and, together with Tier 1 Capital, equals total capital ("Total Capital"). Risk-weighted assets are calculated by taking assets and credit equivalent amounts of off-balance-sheet items and assigning them to one of several broad risk categories. The risk categories are assigned according to the obligor, or, if relevant, to the guarantor, or to the nature of the collateral. The aggregate dollar value of the amount in each category is then multiplied by the risk weight associated with that category.

BHCs and banks are also required to maintain minimum leverage ratios established by the federal bank regulatory agencies. These requirements provide for a minimum leverage ratio of Tier 1 Capital to adjusted quarterly average assets ("Tier 1 Leverage Ratio") equal to 3% to be considered "adequately capitalized" for BHCs and banks that have the highest regulatory rating and are not experiencing significant growth or expansion. All other BHCs and banks will generally be required to maintain a Tier 1 Leverage Ratio of at least 100 to 200 basis points above the stated minimum. See Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for capital ratios for the Company and the Bank.

The risk-based capital standards identify concentrations of credit risk and the risk arising from non-traditional banking activities, as well as an institution's ability to manage these risks, as important factors to be taken into account by the agencies in assessing an institution's overall capital adequacy. The capital guidelines also provide that exposure to a decline in the economic value of an institution's capital due to changes in interest rates is a factor to be considered in evaluating a bank's capital adequacy.

Under the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 ("FDICIA"), the federal banking agencies possess broad powers to take prompt corrective action to resolve problems of insured depository institutions. FDICIA identifies five capital categories for insured depository institutions: "well capitalized," "adequately capitalized," "undercapitalized," "significantly undercapitalized," or "critically undercapitalized." Under regulations established by the federal banking agencies, a "well capitalized" institution must have a Tier 1 Capital Ratio of at least 6%, a Total Capital Ratio of at least 10%, a Tier 1 Leverage Ratio of at least 5%, and not be subject to a capital directive order. As of December 31, 2012, the Bank was classified as "well capitalized." The classification of a depository institution under FDICIA is primarily for the purpose of applying the federal banking agencies' prompt corrective action provisions, and is not intended to be, nor should it be interpreted as, a representation of the overall financial condition or the prospects of that financial institution.

In December 2010, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision finalized a set of international guidelines for determining regulatory capital known as “Basel III,” which includes reforms regarding capital, leverage, and liquidity. The new capital requirements were to be phased in between January 2013 and January 2015. However, on November 9, 2012, the U.S. federal banking agencies indicated that a delay in implementation of the proposed dates was necessary, but did not provide a substitute effective date for the new rules.

In October 2012, in implementing provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the FRB published final rules requiring banks with total consolidated assets of more than $10.0 billion to conduct and publish annual stress tests. Compliance with these requirements has been delayed until October 2013.

See the “Regulatory Initiatives Related to Liquidity, Capital, and Stress Testing” section in MD&A for more information on Basel III and stress testing.

Dividend Restrictions

The Parent is a legal entity separate and distinct from the Bank. The Parent's principal source of funds to pay dividends on its common stock and to service its debt is dividends from the Bank. Various federal and state laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends the Bank may pay to the Parent without regulatory approval. The FRB is authorized to determine the circumstances when the payment of dividends would be an unsafe or unsound practice and to prohibit such payments. The right of the Parent, its shareholders, and creditors, to participate in any distribution of the assets or earnings of its subsidiaries is also subject to the prior claims of creditors of those subsidiaries. For information regarding the limitations on the Bank's ability to pay dividends to the Parent, see Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Table of Contents

Transactions with Affiliates and Insiders

Under federal law, the Bank is subject to restrictions that limit the transfer of funds or other items of value to the Parent, and any other non-bank affiliates in so-called "covered transactions." In general, covered transactions include loans, leases, other extensions of credit, investments and asset purchases, as well as other transactions involving the transfer of value from the Bank to an affiliate or for the benefit of an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act broadened the definition of affiliate, and the definition of covered transaction to include securities borrowing/lending, repurchase/reverse repurchase agreements, and derivative transactions that the Bank may have with an affiliate. The Dodd-Frank Act also strengthened the collateral requirements and limited FRB exemptive authority.

Unless an exemption applies, covered transactions by the Bank with a single affiliate are limited to 10% of the Bank's capital and surplus, and with respect to all covered transactions with affiliates in the aggregate, they are limited to 20% of the Bank's capital and surplus.

The Federal Reserve Act also requires that certain transactions between the Bank and its affiliates be on terms substantially the same, or at least as favorable to the Bank, as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with or involving other non-affiliated persons. The FRB has issued Regulation W which codifies the above restrictions on transactions with affiliates.

The restrictions on loans to directors, executive officers, principal shareholders and their related interests (collectively referred to as "insiders") contained in the Federal Reserve Act and Regulation O apply to all insured institutions and their subsidiaries and holding companies. These restrictions include limits on loans to one borrower and conditions that must be met before such loans can be made. There is also an aggregate limitation on all loans to insiders and their related interests. These loans cannot exceed the institution's total unimpaired capital and surplus. The definition of "extension of credit" for transactions with executive officers, directors, and principal shareholders was also expanded under the Dodd-Frank Act to include credit exposure arising from derivative transactions, repurchase or reverse repurchase agreements, and securities lending or borrowing transactions.

FDIC Insurance

The FDIC provides insurance coverage for certain deposits through the Deposit Insurance Fund (the "DIF"), which the FDIC maintains by assessing depository institutions an insurance premium. As a result of higher levels of bank failures over the last few years and the dramatic increase in resolution costs of the FDIC, the DIF has been depleted. In addition, the amount of FDIC insurance coverage for insured deposits has been increased from $100,000 to $250,000 per depositor, per institution, and until January 1, 2013, the insurance coverage for non-interest bearing demand deposits was unlimited. These developments have caused increased stress on the DIF. In order to restore reserves and ensure that the DIF will be able to adequately cover losses from future bank failures, the FDIC approved new deposit insurance rules in November 2009. These new rules required insured depository institutions to prepay their estimated quarterly risk-based assessments for all of 2010, 2011, and 2012. As a result, on December 30, 2009, the Bank prepaid its assessment in the amount of $42.3 million related to years 2010 through 2012. As of December 31, 2012 the remaining balance of our prepaid FDIC assessment was $15.6 million.

On February 7, 2011, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act, the FDIC approved final rules on assessments which became effective on April 1, 2011. These final rules redefined the base for FDIC insurance assessments from the amount of insured deposits to an institution's "average consolidated total assets minus average tangible equity." The FDIC's final rules eliminated risk categories and debt ratings from the assessment calculation for large banks (over $10.0 billion) and combined CAMELS ratings and certain financial measures into two scorecards; one for most large banks and another for the remaining large, highly complex banks. Each scorecard assesses risk measures to produce two scores, a performance score and a loss severity score, that will be combined and converted to an initial assessment rate. However, the FDIC retains the ability to adjust the total score of large and highly complex banks based upon quantitative or qualitative measures not adequately captured in the scorecards. Our FDIC insurance assessment was $7.9 million in 2012 and $9.3 million in 2011.

Table of Contents

Other Safety and Soundness Regulations

As required by FDICIA, the federal banking agencies' prompt corrective action powers impose progressively more restrictive constraints on operations, management and capital distributions, depending on the category in which an institution is classified. These actions can include: requiring an insured depository institution to adopt a capital restoration plan guaranteed by the institution's parent company; placing limits on asset growth and restrictions on activities, including restrictions on transactions with affiliates; restricting the interest rates the institution may pay on deposits; prohibiting the payment of principal or interest on subordinated debt; prohibiting the holding company from making capital distributions without prior regulatory approval; and, ultimately, appointing a receiver for the institution.

The federal banking agencies also have adopted guidelines prescribing safety and soundness standards relating to internal controls and information systems, internal audit systems, loan documentation, credit underwriting, interest rate exposure, asset growth, and compensation and benefits. The federal regulatory agencies may take action against a financial institution that does not meet such standards.

Community Reinvestment and Consumer Protection Laws

In connection with its lending activities, the Bank is subject to a number of federal laws designed to protect borrowers and promote lending to various sectors of the economy and population. These include the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Truth-in-Lending Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and the Community Reinvestment Act (the "CRA"). In addition, federal banking regulators, pursuant to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, have enacted regulations limiting the ability of banks and other financial institutions to disclose nonpublic consumer information to non-affiliated third parties. The regulations require disclosure of privacy policies and allow consumers to prevent certain personal information from being shared with non-affiliated third parties.

The CRA requires the appropriate federal banking agency, in connection with its examination of a bank, to assess the bank's record in meeting the credit needs of the communities served by the bank, including low and moderate income neighborhoods.

Under the CRA, institutions are assigned a rating of "outstanding," "satisfactory," "needs to improve," or "substantial non-compliance." The Bank received an "outstanding" rating in its most recent CRA evaluation.

The Dodd-Frank Act created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) as an agency to centralize responsibility for consumer financial protection, including implementing, examining and enforcing compliance with federal consumer financial laws. The CFPB has begun exercising supervisory review of banks under its jurisdiction. The CFPB is expected to focus its rulemaking in several areas, particularly in the areas of mortgage reform involving the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; however, the content of the final rules and impact to our businesses are uncertain at this time.

Additional rulemakings to come under the Dodd-Frank Act will dictate compliance changes for financial institutions. Any such changes in regulations or regulatory policies applicable to the Bank make it difficult to predict the ultimate effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Laws

The Bank is subject to the Bank Secrecy Act and other anti-money laundering laws and regulations, including the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001. The USA PATRIOT Act substantially broadened the scope of U.S. anti-money laundering laws and regulations by creating new laws, regulations, and penalties, imposing significant new compliance and due diligence obligations, and expanding the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. These laws and regulations require the Bank to implement policies, procedures, and controls to detect, prevent, and report potential money laundering and terrorist financing and to verify the identity of its customers. Violations of these requirements can result in substantial civil and criminal sanctions. In addition, provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act require the federal financial institution regulatory agencies to consider the effectiveness of a financial institution's anti-money laundering activities when reviewing bank mergers and BHC acquisitions.

Employees

As of December 31, 2012, we had approximately 2,300 employees.

Table of Contents

Executive Officers of the Registrant

Listed below are executive officers of the Parent as of December 31, 2012.

Peter S. Ho, 47
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since July 2010 and President since April 2008; Vice Chairman and Chief Banking Officer from January 2006 to April 2008.

Kent T. Lucien, 59
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer since April 2008; Trustee, C. Brewer & Co., Ltd. from April 2006 to December 2007.

Peter M. Biggs, 61

Vice Chairman since February 2011 and Chief Retail Officer since April 2012; Senior Executive Vice President, Consumer Products Division from March 2006 to February 2011.

Sharon M. Crofts, 47

Vice Chairman of Operations and Technology since October 2012; Senior Executive Vice President of Operations from May 2008 to October 2012; Executive Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer from December 2005 to May 2008.

Wayne Y. Hamano, 58

Vice Chairman since December 2008 and Chief Commercial Officer since September 2007; Senior Executive Vice President, Hawaii Commercial Banking Division from July 2006 to September 2007.

Mark A. Rossi, 63

Vice Chairman, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary since February 2007; President of Lane Powell PC from July 2004 to January 2007.

Mary E. Sellers, 56

Vice Chairman and Chief Risk Officer since July 2005.

Donna A. Tanoue, 58

Vice Chairman, Client Relations and Community Activities since February 2007; President of the Bank of Hawaii Foundation since April 2006.

Derek J. Norris, 63

Senior Executive Vice President and Controller since December 2009; Executive Vice President and Controller since December 2008; Executive Vice President and General Auditor from January 2002 to December 2008.

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

There are a number of risks and uncertainties that could negatively affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. The risks and uncertainties described below are some of the important inherent risk factors that could affect our business and operations, although they are not the only risks that may have a material adverse affect on the Company.

Changes in business and economic conditions, in particular those of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands (Guam and nearby islands), could lead to lower revenue, lower asset quality, and lower earnings.

Unlike larger national or other regional banks that are more geographically diversified, our business and earnings are closely tied to the economies of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. These local economies rely heavily on tourism, real estate, government, and other service-based industries. Lower visitor arrivals or spending, real or threatened acts of war or terrorism, increases in energy costs, the availability of affordable air transportation, natural disasters and adverse weather, public health issues, and State of Hawaii and County budget issues impact consumer and corporate spending. As a result, such events may contribute to a significant deterioration in general economic conditions in our markets which could adversely impact us and our customers' operations.

Hawaii's economy continued to improve during 2012 due to increasing visitor arrivals and spending. However, deterioration of economic conditions or the slow pace of economic recovery could adversely affect the quality of our assets, credit losses, and the demand for our products and services, which could lead to lower revenues and lower earnings. The level of visitor arrivals and spending, housing prices, and unemployment rates are some of the metrics that we continually monitor. We also monitor the value of collateral, such as real estate, that secures the loans we have made. The borrowing power of our customers could also be negatively impacted by a decline in the value of collateral.

Changes in defense spending by the federal government as a result of congressional budget cuts could adversely impact the economy in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands.

The U.S. military has a major presence in Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. As a result, the U.S. military is an important aspect of the economies in which we operate. Proposals to cut defense and other security spending could have an adverse impact on the economies in which we operate, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Difficult market conditions and economic trends have adversely affected our industry.

The banking industry continues to be affected by a depressed real estate market, high levels of unemployment, low demand for new lending opportunities, and low interest margins. Dramatic declines in the national housing market over the past several years, with falling home prices and increasing foreclosures and unemployment, have resulted in significant write-downs of asset values by financial institutions. Although economic conditions in Hawaii and the U.S. are showing signs of improvement, a further decline in real estate values, home sales volumes and financial stress on borrowers as a result of the uncertain economic environment could have an adverse effect on our borrowers and/or their customers, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Continued economic conditions that negatively affect the housing market, the job market and the demand for other goods and services could cause the credit quality of the Company's loan portfolios to deteriorate, which would have a negative impact on the Company's business.

Real estate values in Hawaii were somewhat more resilient than many markets on the U.S. Mainland over recent years. Furthermore, our commercial and consumer delinquencies improved in 2012. However, there is no assurance that these trends will continue in future periods.

Risks from the debt crisis in Europe could result in a disruption of the financial markets which may have a detrimental impact on global economic conditions and affect economic conditions in Hawaii.

There remains considerable uncertainty as to future developments in the European debt crisis and the impact on financial markets. Market and economic disruptions have affected, and may continue to affect, consumer confidence levels, spending, and credit factors, such that our business and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Table of Contents

Changes in interest rates could adversely impact our results of operations and capital.

Our earnings are highly dependent on the spread between the interest earned on loans, leases, and investment securities and the interest paid on deposits and borrowings. Changes in market interest rates impact the rates earned on loans, leases, and investment securities and the rates paid on deposits and borrowings. In addition, changes to market interest rates could impact the level of loans, leases, investment securities, deposits, and borrowings, and the credit profile of our current borrowers. Interest rates are affected by many factors beyond our control, and fluctuate in response to general economic conditions, currency fluctuations, and the monetary and fiscal policies of various governmental and regulatory authorities. Changes in monetary policy, including changes in interest rates, will influence the origination of loans and leases, the purchase of investments, the generation of deposits, and the rates received on loans and investment securities and paid on deposits. Any substantial prolonged change in market interest rates may negatively impact our ability to attract deposits, originate loans and leases, and achieve satisfactory interest rate spreads, any of which could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Credit losses could increase if economic conditions stagnate or deteriorate.

Although economic conditions are improving nationally and in Hawaii, increased credit losses for us could result if economic conditions stagnate or deteriorate. The risk of nonpayment on loans and leases is inherent in all lending activities. We maintain a reserve for credit losses to absorb estimated probable credit losses inherent in the loan, lease, and commitment portfolios as of the balance sheet date. Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the loan and lease portfolio in determining the level of the reserve for credit losses. Many of these assumptions are based on current economic conditions. Should economic conditions stagnate or deteriorate nationally or in Hawaii, we may experience higher credit losses in future periods.

Inability of our borrowers to make timely repayments on their loans, or decreases in real estate collateral values may result in increased delinquencies, foreclosures, and customer bankruptcies, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Legislation and regulatory initiatives affecting the financial services industry, including restrictions and requirements, could detrimentally affect the Company's business.

In light of current conditions and the market expectation of a slow economic recovery, regulators have increased their focus on the regulation of financial institutions. Laws and regulations, and in particular banking, securities and tax laws, are under intense scrutiny because of the current economic environment. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in July 2010, affected sweeping reforms to the financial services industry. Although some of the rules and regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act have already gone into effect, many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act have yet to be implemented and will require further interpretation and rulemaking by federal regulators. We are closely monitoring all relevant sections of the Dodd-Frank Act to ensure continued compliance with laws and regulations. While the ultimate effect of the Dodd-Frank Act on us cannot currently be determined, the law and its implementing rules and regulations are likely to result in increased compliance costs and fees, along with possible restrictions on our operations, any of which may have a material adverse affect on our operating results and financial condition. The regulation of most consumer financial products and services is now centralized in the CFPB, where it has begun to exercise its broad rule-making, supervisory, and examination authority, as well as expanded data collecting and enforcement powers, over depository institutions with more than $10.0 billion in assets. However, regulation of overall safety and soundness, the CRA, federal housing and flood insurance, as they pertain to consumer financial products and services, will remain with the FRB. Much of the rules and regulations of the CFPB have not been implemented, and therefore, the scope and impact of the CFPB's actions cannot be determined at this time. This creates significant uncertainty for the Company and the financial services industry in general.

These new laws, regulations, and changes may increase our costs of regulatory compliance. They may significantly affect the markets in which we do business, the markets for and value of our investments, and our ongoing operations, costs, and profitability. The future impact of the many provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and other legislative and regulatory initiatives on the Company's business and results of operations will depend upon regulatory interpretation and rulemaking that will be undertaken over the next several months and years. As a result, we are unable to predict the ultimate impact of the Dodd-Frank Act or of other future legislation or regulation, including the extent to which it could increase costs or limit our ability to pursue business opportunities in an efficient manner, or otherwise adversely affect our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Changes in the capital, leverage, liquidity requirements and the introduction of stress testing requirements for financial institutions could materially affect future requirements of the Company.

Under Basel III, it is expected that financial institutions will be required to have more capital and a higher quality of capital. Basel III is also expected to impose a leverage ratio requirement and liquidity standards. The new minimum capital requirements were to be phased in between January 2013 and January 2015. However, on November 9, 2012, the U.S. federal banking agencies indicated that a delay in implementation of the proposed dates was necessary, but did not provide a substitute effective date for the new rules. Implementation of these new capital and liquidity requirements has created significant uncertainty with respect to the future requirements for financial institutions.

In October 2012, the FRB published final rules implementing the Dodd-Frank Act stress testing requirements for banks with total consolidated assets of more than $10.0 billion. The final stress testing rules set forth the timing and type of stress test activities as well as rules governing controls, oversight and disclosure.

Compliance with Basel III and the results of our stress testing may result in increased capital, liquidity, and disclosure requirements. See the "Regulatory Initiatives Related to Liquidity, Capital, and Stress Testing" section in MD&A for more information.

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

Proposed consumer protection initiatives related to the foreclosure process, including voluntary and/or mandatory programs intended to permit or require lenders to consider loan modifications or other alternatives to foreclosure, could increase our credit losses or increase our expense in pursuing our remedies as a creditor.

For example, in May 2011, a new Hawaii foreclosure law ("Act 48") overhauled rules for nonjudicial, or out-of-court, foreclosures. Previously, nonjudicial foreclosures were how lenders handled the vast majority of foreclosures in Hawaii, as the process was quicker and less expensive than going through court. Act 48 was intended to curb potential lender abuses while providing qualified owner-occupants an option to have a dispute resolution professional assist with foreclosure mitigation in front of a lender's representative before a foreclosure sale can proceed. However, Act 48 has had the unintended effect of lenders forgoing nonjudicial foreclosures entirely and filing all foreclosures in court, creating a backlog that has slowed the judicial foreclosure process. In June 2012, Act 182 was enacted partially in an attempt to modify Act 48 to make it more acceptable for lenders to pursue nonjudicial foreclosures. The manner in which these issues are ultimately resolved could impact our foreclosure procedures, which in turn could affect our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the joint federal-state settlement with several mortgage servicers over foreclosure practice abuses creates additional uncertainty for the Company and the mortgage servicing industry in general as it relates to the implementation of mortgage loan modifications and loss mitigation practices in the future.

Competition may adversely affect our business.

Our future depends on our ability to compete effectively. We compete for deposits, loans, leases, and other financial services with a variety of competitors, including banks, thrifts, credit unions, mortgage companies, broker dealers, and insurance companies, all of which may be based in or outside of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. We expect competitive conditions to intensify as consolidation in the financial services industry continues. The financial services industry is also likely to become more competitive as further technological advances enable more companies, including non-depository institutions, to provide financial services. Failure to effectively compete, innovate, and to make effective use of available channels to deliver our products and services could adversely affect our financial condition or results of operations.

The Parent's liquidity is dependent on dividends from the Bank.

The Parent is a separate and distinct legal entity from the Bank. The Parent receives substantially all of its cash in the form of dividends from the Bank. These dividends are the principal source of funds to pay, for example, dividends on the Parent's common stock or to repurchase common stock under our share repurchase program. Various federal and state laws and regulations limit the amount of dividends that the Bank may pay to the Parent. If the amount of dividends paid by the Bank is further limited, the Parent's ability to meet its obligations, pay dividends to shareholders, or repurchase stock, may be further limited as well.

Table of Contents

A failure in or breach of our operational systems, information systems, or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers, may result in financial losses, loss of customers, or damage to our reputation.

We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. In addition, we rely on third parties to provide key components of our infrastructure, including loan, deposit and general ledger processing, internet connections, and network access. These types of information and related systems are critical to the operation of our business and essential to our ability to perform day-to-day operations, and, in some cases, are critical to the operations of certain of our customers. These third parties with which we do business or that facilitate our business activities, including exchanges, clearing firms, financial intermediaries or vendors that provide services or security solutions for our operations, could also be sources of operational and information security risk to us, including from breakdowns or failures of their own systems or capacity constraints. Although we have business continuity plans and other safeguards in place, our business operations may be adversely affected by significant and widespread disruption to our physical infrastructure or operating systems that support our business and our customers, resulting in financial losses, loss of customers, or damage to our reputation.

An interruption or breach in security of our information systems, including as a result of cyber attacks, could disrupt our business, result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential or proprietary information, damage our reputation, or result in financial losses.

Our technologies, systems, networks and software, and those of other financial institutions, have been and are likely to continue to be the target of cyber attacks, malicious code, computer viruses and denial of service attacks that could result in unauthorized access, misuse, loss or destruction of data (including confidential customer information), account takeovers, unavailability of service or other events. These types of threats may derive from human error, fraud or malice on the part of external or internal parties, or may result from accidental technological failure. Further, to access our products and services our customers may use computers and mobile devices that are beyond our security control systems. The risk of a security breach or disruption, particularly through cyber attack or cyber intrusion, including by computer hackers, has increased as the number, intensity and sophistication of attempted attacks and intrusions from around the world have increased.

Our customers and employees have been, and will continue to be, targeted by parties using fraudulent e-mails and other communications to misappropriate passwords, credit card numbers, or other personal information or to introduce viruses or other malware through "trojan horse" programs to our customers' computers. These communications may appear to be legitimate messages sent by the Bank or other businesses, but direct recipients to fake websites operated by the sender of the e-mail or request that the recipient send a password or other confidential information via e-mail or download a program. Despite our efforts to mitigate these tactics through product improvements, and customer and employee education, such attempted frauds remain a serious problem that may cause customer and/or Bank losses, damage to our brand, and an increase in our costs.

Although we make significant efforts to maintain the security and integrity of our information systems and have implemented various measures to manage the risk of a security breach or disruption, there can be no assurance that our security efforts and measures will be effective or that attempted security breaches or disruptions would not be successful or damaging. Even the most well protected information, networks, systems and facilities remain potentially vulnerable because attempted security breaches, particularly cyber attacks and intrusions, or disruptions will occur in the future, and because the techniques used in such attempts are constantly evolving and generally are not recognized until launched against a target, and in some cases are designed not to be detected and, in fact, may not be detected. Accordingly, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate security barriers or other preventative measures, and thus it is virtually impossible for us to entirely mitigate this risk. A security breach or other significant disruption could: 1) Disrupt the proper functioning of our networks and systems and therefore our operations and/or those of certain of our customers; 2) Result in the unauthorized access to, and destruction, loss, theft, misappropriation or release of confidential, sensitive or otherwise valuable information of ours or our customers, including account numbers and other financial information; 3) Result in a violation of applicable privacy and other laws, subjecting the Bank to additional regulatory scrutiny and expose the Bank to civil litigation and possible financial liability; 4) Require significant management attention and resources to remedy the damages that result; or 5) Harm our reputation or cause a decrease in the number of customers that choose to do business with us. The occurrence of any such failures, disruptions or security breaches could have a negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

Negative public opinion could damage our reputation and adversely impact our earnings and liquidity.

Reputational risk, or the risk to our business, earnings, liquidity, and capital from negative public opinion could result from our actual or alleged conduct in a variety of areas, including legal and regulatory compliance, lending practices, corporate governance, litigation, ethical issues, or inadequate protection of customer information. We expend significant resources to

Table of Contents

comply with regulatory requirements. Failure to comply could result in reputational harm or significant legal or remedial costs. Damage to our reputation could adversely affect our ability to retain and attract new customers, and adversely impact our earnings and liquidity.

We are subject to certain litigation, and our expenses related to this litigation may adversely affect our results.

We are, from time to time, involved in various legal proceedings arising from our normal business activities. These claims and legal actions, including supervisory actions by our regulators, could involve large monetary claims and significant defense costs. The outcome of these cases is uncertain. Substantial legal liability or significant regulatory action against us could have material financial effects or cause significant reputational harm to us, which in turn could seriously harm our business prospects. We may be exposed to substantial uninsured liabilities, which could materially affect our results of operations and financial condition. Based on information currently available, we believe that the eventual outcome of known actions against us will not be materially in excess of such amounts accrued by us. However, in the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of those matters may be material to our statement of income for any particular period.

Changes in income tax laws or interpretations or in accounting standards could materially affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in income tax laws could be enacted, or interpretations of existing income tax laws could change, causing an adverse effect to our financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we report our financial condition and results of operations. Some of these policies require use of estimates and assumptions that may affect the value of our assets, liabilities, and financial results. Periodically, new accounting standards are imposed or existing standards are revised, changing the methods for preparing our financial statements. These changes are not within our control and may significantly impact our financial condition and results of operations.

Our performance depends on attracting and retaining key employees and skilled personnel to operate our business effectively.

Our success is dependent on our ability to recruit qualified and skilled personnel to operate our business effectively. Competition for these qualified and skilled people is intense. There are a limited number of qualified personnel in the markets we serve, so our success depends in part on the continued services of many of our current management and other key employees. Failure to retain our key employees and maintain adequate staffing of qualified personnel could adversely impact our operations and our ability to compete.

The soundness of other financial institutions, as counterparties, may adversely impact our financial condition or results of operations.

Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Financial services institutions are interrelated as a result of trading, clearing, lending, counterparty, or other relationships. As a result, defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions or the financial services industry in general have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. We have exposure to many different industries and counterparties, and we routinely execute transactions with brokers and dealers, commercial banks, investment banks, mutual funds, and other institutional clients. Many of these transactions expose us to credit risk in the event of default of our counterparty or client. In addition, our credit risk may be exacerbated when the collateral held by us cannot be realized upon or is liquidated at prices not sufficient to recover the full amount of the loan or derivative exposure due us. Such losses could materially affect our financial condition or results of operations.

Changes in the capital markets could materially affect the level of assets under management and the demand for our other fee-based services.

Changes in the capital markets could affect the volume of income from and demand for our fee-based services. Our investment management revenues depend in large part on the level of assets under management. Market volatility that leads customers to liquidate investments, move investments to other institutions or asset classes, as well as lower asset values can reduce our level of assets under management and thereby decrease our investment management revenues.

Table of Contents

Our mortgage banking income may experience significant volatility.

Our mortgage banking income is highly influenced by the level and direction of mortgage interest rates, real estate activity, and refinancing activity. Interest rates can affect the amount of mortgage banking activity and impact fee income and the fair value of our derivative financial instruments and mortgage servicing rights. Mortgage banking income may also be impacted by changes in our strategy to manage our residential mortgage portfolio. For example, we may occasionally change the proportion of our loan originations that are sold in the secondary market and added to our loan portfolio.

Our strong mortgage banking results for 2012 were primarily due to high levels of loan refinancing activity and loan sales, which were the result of low interest rates. We also sold loans in the secondary market at relatively higher margins in 2012 compared to prior years. Our mortgage banking results for 2012 is not necessarily indicative of results to be expected in 2013.

Our investment in the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the "FHLB") stock may be subject to impairment charges in future periods if the financial condition of the FHLB declines further.

The Bank is a member of the FHLB, and as such, is required to hold FHLB stock as a condition of membership. As of December 31, 2012, the carrying value of our FHLB stock was $60.2 million and consisted of 602,001 shares valued at a par value of $100 per share. Ownership of FHLB stock is restricted and the stock can only be redeemed or sold at par value and only to the FHLB or to another member institution. In August 2009, the FHLB received a capital classification of "undercapitalized" from its primary regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (the "Finance Agency"). However, on September 7, 2012, the FHLB reported that its financial health has been steadily improving. As such, the Finance Agency upgraded the FHLB's classification to “adequately capitalized,” which allows it, conditions permitting, to repurchase a small amount of excess capital stock for the first time since December 2008. In 2007, the Company requested the redemption of 361,645 shares of FHLB common stock. In 2012, the FHLB redeemed 10,923 shares of their stock at par value of $100 per share for a total of $1.1 million. This redemption reduced our holdings in FHLB stock from $61.3 million as of December 31, 2011 to $60.2 million as of December 31, 2012.

Although the FHLB is showing signs of financial improvement, the FHLB is still dealing with generally weak demand for wholesale funding, including FHLB advances, and the possibility that further declines in the value of its private-label mortgage-backed securities could cause it to fall below its risk-based capital requirements. Such adverse occurrences could subject our FHLB stock to future impairment charges. See discussion in MD&A and Note 7 to the Consolidated Financial Statements related to the impairment analysis of our FHLB stock as of December 31, 2012.

The requirement to record certain assets and liabilities at fair value may adversely affect our financial results.

We report certain assets, including available-for-sale investment securities, at fair value. Generally, for assets that are reported at fair value we use quoted market prices or valuation models that utilize market data inputs to estimate fair value. Because we record these assets at their estimated fair value, we may incur losses even if the asset in question presents minimal credit risk. The level of interest rates can impact the estimated fair value of investment securities. Disruptions in the capital markets may require us to recognize other-than-temporary impairments in future periods with respect to investment securities in our portfolio. The amount and timing of any impairment recognized will depend on the severity and duration of the decline in fair value of our investment securities and our estimation of the anticipated recovery period.

Changes to the amount and timing of proposed common stock repurchases.

The actual amount and timing of future share repurchases, if any, will depend on market and economic conditions, applicable SEC rules, and various other factors.

Table of Contents

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not Applicable.

Item 2. Properties

Our principal offices are located in the Financial Plaza of the Pacific in Honolulu, Hawaii. We own and lease other branch offices and operating facilities located throughout Hawaii and the Pacific Islands. Additional information with respect to premises and equipment is presented in Notes 6 and 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

Information required by this item is set forth in Note 18 to the Consolidated Financial Statements, under the discussion related to Contingencies.

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

Not Applicable.

Table of Contents

Part II

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information, Shareholders, and Dividends

Information regarding the historical market prices of the Parent's common stock, book value, and dividends declared on that stock are shown below.

Market Prices, Book Values, and Common Stock Dividends Per Share



		Market Price Range								Book Value			Dividends Declared
Year/Period	High			Low			Close			Book Value			Dividends Declared
2012		$	49.99		$	41.41		$	44.05		$	22.83		$	1.80
First Quarter		48.75			44.08			48.35						0.45
Second Quarter		49.99			44.02			45.95						0.45
Third Quarter		48.92			45.29			45.62						0.45
Fourth Quarter		46.38			41.41			44.05						0.45

2011		$	49.26		$	34.50		$	44.49		$	21.82		$	1.80
First Quarter		49.23			44.32			47.82						0.45
Second Quarter		49.26			44.90			46.52						0.45
Third Quarter		47.10			35.30			36.40						0.45
Fourth Quarter		45.13			34.50			44.49						0.45

The common stock of the Parent is traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE Symbol: BOH) and quoted daily in leading financial publications. As of February 14, 2013, there were 6,747 common shareholders of record.

The Parent's Board of Directors considers on a quarterly basis the feasibility of paying a cash dividend to its shareholders and the level and feasibility of repurchasing shares of the Parent's common stock. Under the Parent's general practice, dividends, if declared during the quarter, are paid prior to the end of the subsequent quarter. See "Dividend Restrictions" under "Supervision and Regulation" in Item 1 of this report and Note 11 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities



Period	Total Number of Shares Purchased ¹	Average Price Paid Per Share			Total Number of Shares Purchased as Part of Publicly Announced Plans or Programs	Approximate Dollar Value of Shares that May Yet Be Purchased Under the Plans or Programs ²
October 1 - 31, 2012	130,000		$	44.69	130,000		$	78,647,890
November 1 - 30, 2012	168,830		43.68		163,000		71,535,420
December 1 - 31, 2012	46,000		43.81		46,000		69,520,078
Total	344,830		$	44.08	339,000

¹During the fourth quarter of 2012, 5,830 shares were purchased from employees in connection with stock swaps and shares purchased for a deferred

compensation plan. These shares were not purchased as part of the publicly announced program. The shares were purchased at the closing price of the Parent's

common stock on the dates of purchase.

² The share repurchase program was first announced in July 2001. As of December 31, 2012, $69.5 million remained of the total $1.9 billion total repurchase

amount authorized by the Parent's Board of Directors under the share repurchase program. The program has no set expiration or termination date.

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following graph shows the cumulative total return for the Parent's common stock compared to the cumulative total returns for the Standard & Poor's ("S&P") 500 Index and the S&P Banks Index. The graph assumes that $100 was invested on December 31, 2007 in the Parent's common stock, the S&P 500 Index, and the S&P Banks Index. The cumulative total return on each investment is as of December 31 of each of the subsequent five years and assumes reinvestment of dividends.



	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
Bank of Hawaii Corporation	$100	$92	$100	$104	$103	$106
S&P 500 Index	100	63	80	92	94	109
S&P Banks Index	100	79	74	90	81	101

Table of Contents

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

Summary of Selected Consolidated Financial Data



(dollars in millions, except per share amounts)	2012			2011			2010			2009			2008
Year Ended December 31,
Operating Results
Net Interest Income	$	377.3		$	390.2		$	406.5		$	412.3		$	418.8
Provision for Credit Losses	1.0			12.7			55.3			107.9			60.5
Total Noninterest Income	200.3			197.7			255.3			267.8			258.1
Total Noninterest Expense	334.3			348.2			346.2			350.0			346.8
Net Income	166.1			160.0			183.9			144.0			192.2
Basic Earnings Per Share	3.68			3.40			3.83			3.02			4.03
Diluted Earnings Per Share	3.67			3.39			3.80			3.00			3.99
Dividends Declared Per Share	1.80			1.80			1.80			1.80			1.77

Performance Ratios
Net Income to Average Total Assets (ROA)	1.22		%	1.22		%	1.45		%	1.22		%	1.84		%
Net Income to Average Shareholders' Equity (ROE)	16.23			15.69			18.16			16.42			24.54
Efficiency Ratio¹	57.88			59.23			52.32			51.46			51.23
Net Interest Margin ²	2.97			3.13			3.41			3.72			4.33
Dividend Payout Ratio³	48.91			52.94			47.00			59.60			43.92
Average Shareholders' Equity to Average Assets	7.52			7.78			7.98			7.44			7.50

Average Balances
Average Loans and Leases	$	5,680.3		$	5,349.9		$	5,472.5		$	6,145.0		$	6,542.2
Average Assets	13,609.2			13,105.0			12,687.7			11,783.4			10,448.2
Average Deposits	10,935.0			9,924.7			9,509.1			9,108.4			7,851.3
Average Shareholders' Equity	1,023.3			1,020.1			1,012.7			877.2			783.1

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding
Basic Weighted Average Shares	45,115,441			47,064,925			48,055,025			47,702,500			47,674,000
Diluted Weighted Average Shares	45,249,300			47,224,981			48,355,965			48,009,277			48,200,650

As of December 31,
Balance Sheet Totals
Loans and Leases	$	5,854.5		$	5,538.3		$	5,335.8		$	5,759.8		$	6,530.2
Total Assets	13,728.4			13,846.4			13,126.8			12,414.8			10,763.5
Total Deposits	11,529.5			10,592.6			9,889.0			9,409.7			8,292.1
Long-Term Debt	128.1			30.7			32.7			90.3			203.3
Total Shareholders' Equity	1,021.7			1,002.7			1011.1			896.0			790.7

Asset Quality
Allowance for Loan and Lease Losses	$	128.9		$	138.6		$	147.4		$	143.7		$	123.5
Non-Performing Assets⁴	37.1			40.8			37.8			48.3			14.9

Financial Ratios
Allowance to Loans and Leases Outstanding	2.20		%	2.50		%	2.76		%	2.49		%	1.89		%
Tier 1 Capital Ratio	16.13			16.68			18.28			14.84			11.24
Total Capital Ratio	17.39			17.95			19.55			16.11			12.49
Tier 1 Leverage Ratio	6.83			6.73			7.15			6.76			7.30
Total Shareholders' Equity to Total Assets	7.44			7.24			7.70			7.22			7.35
Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets⁵	7.23			7.03			7.48			6.98			7.04
Tangible Common Equity to Risk-Weighted Assets⁵	17.24			17.93			19.29			15.45			11.28

Non-Financial Data
Full-Time Equivalent Employees	2,276			2,370			2,399			2,418			2,581
Branches and Offices	76			81			82			83			85
ATMs	494			506			502			485			462
Common Shareholders of Record	6,775			6,977			7,128			7,323			7,523


¹	Efficiency ratio is defined as noninterest expense divided by total revenue (net interest income and noninterest income).


²	Net interest margin is defined as net interest income, on a fully taxable-equivalent basis, as a percentage of average earning assets.


³	Dividend payout ratio is defined as dividends declared per share divided by basic earnings per share.


⁴	Excluded from non-performing assets are contractually binding non-accrual loans held for sale of $4.2 million as of December 31, 2009.


⁵	Tangible common equity to tangible assets and tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets are Non-GAAP financial measures. See the "Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures" section below.

Table of Contents

Use of Non-GAAP Financial Measures

The ratios “tangible common equity to tangible assets” and “tangible common equity to risk-weighted assets” are Non-GAAP financial measures. The Company believes these measurements are useful for investors, regulators, management and others to evaluate capital adequacy relative to other financial institutions. Although these Non-GAAP financial measures are frequently used by stakeholders in the evaluation of a company, they have limitations as analytical tools, and should not be considered in isolation, or as a substitute for analyses of results as reported under GAAP. The following table provides a reconciliation of these Non-GAAP financial measures with financial measures defined by GAAP.

GAAP to Non-GAAP Reconciliation



	December 31,
(dollars in thousands)	2012			2011			2010			2009			2008
Total Shareholders' Equity	$	1,021,665		$	1,002,667		$	1,011,133		$	895,973		$	790,704
Less: Goodwill	31,517			31,517			31,517			31,517			34,959
Intangible Assets	33			83			154			233			978
Tangible Common Equity	$	990,115		$	971,067		$	979,462		$	864,223		$	754,767

Total Assets	$	13,728,372		$	13,846,391		$	13,126,787		$	12,414,827		$	10,763,475
Less: Goodwill	31,517			31,517			31,517			31,517			34,959
Intangible Assets	33			83			154			233			978
Tangible Assets	$	13,696,822		$	13,814,791		$	13,095,116		$	12,383,077		$	10,727,538
Risk-Weighted Assets, determined in accordance with prescribed regulatory requirements	$	5,744,722		$	5,414,481		$	5,076,909		$	5,594,532		$	6,688,530

Total Shareholders' Equity to Total Assets	7.44		%	7.24		%	7.70		%	7.22		%	7.35		%
Tangible Common Equity to Tangible Assets (Non-GAAP)	7.23		%	7.03		%	7.48		%	6.98		%	7.04		%

Tier 1 Capital Ratio	16.13		%	16.68		%	18.28		%	14.84		%	11.24		%
Tangible Common Equity to Risk-Weighted Assets (Non-GAAP)	17.24		%	17.93		%	19.29		%	15.45		%	11.28		%

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Forward-Looking Statements

This report contains forward-looking statements concerning, among other things, the economic and business environment in our service area and elsewhere, credit quality and other financial and business matters in future periods. Our forward-looking statements are based on numerous assumptions, any of which could prove to be inaccurate and actual results may differ materially from those projected because of a variety of risks and uncertainties, including, but not limited to: 1) general economic conditions either nationally, internationally, or locally may be different than expected, and particularly, any event that negatively impacts the tourism industry in Hawaii; 2) unanticipated changes in the securities markets, public debt markets, and other capital markets in the U.S. and internationally; 3) the competitive pressure among financial services and products; 4) the impact of recent legislative and regulatory initiatives, particularly the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the "Dodd-Frank Act"); 5) changes in fiscal and monetary policies of the markets in which we operate; 6) the increased cost of maintaining or the Company's ability to maintain adequate liquidity and capital, based on the requirements adopted by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and U.S. regulators; 7) actual or alleged conduct which could harm our reputation; 8) changes in accounting standards; 9) changes in tax laws or regulations or the interpretation of such laws and regulations; 10) changes in our credit quality or risk profile that may increase or decrease the required level of our reserve for credit losses; 11) changes in market interest rates that may affect credit markets and our ability to maintain our net interest margin; 12) the impact of litigation and regulatory investigations of the Company, including costs, expenses, settlements, and judgments; 13) any failure in or breach of our operational systems, information systems or infrastructure, or those of our third party vendors and other service providers; 14)

any interruption or breach of security of our information systems resulting in failures or disruptions in customer account management, general ledger processing, and loan or deposit systems; 15) changes to the amount and timing of proposed common stock repurchases; and 16) natural disasters, public unrest or adverse weather, public health, and other conditions impacting us and our customers' operations. A detailed discussion of these and other risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results and events to differ materially from such forward-looking statements is included under the section entitled "Risk Factors" in Part I of this report. Words such as "believes," "anticipates," "expects," "intends," "targeted," and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not exclusive means of identifying such statements. We undertake no obligation to update forward-looking statements to reflect later events or circumstances.

Critical Accounting Policies

Our Consolidated Financial Statements were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and follow general practices within the industries in which we operate. The most significant accounting policies we follow are presented in Note 1 to the Consolidated Financial Statements. Application of these principles requires us to make estimates, assumptions, and judgments that affect the amounts reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements and accompanying notes. Most accounting policies are not considered by management to be critical accounting policies. Several factors are considered in determining whether or not a policy is critical in the preparation of the Consolidated Financial Statements. These factors include among other things, whether the policy requires management to make difficult, subjective, and complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because it is likely that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. The accounting policies which we believe to be most critical in preparing our Consolidated Financial Statements are those that are related to the determination of the reserve for credit losses, fair value estimates, leased asset residual values, and income taxes.

Reserve for Credit Losses

A consequence of lending activities is that we may incur credit losses. The amount of such losses will vary depending upon the risk characteristics of the loan and lease portfolio as affected by economic conditions such as rising interest rates and the financial performance of borrowers. The reserve for credit losses consists of the allowance for loan and lease losses (the "Allowance") and a reserve for unfunded commitments (the "Unfunded Reserve"). The Allowance provides for probable and estimable losses inherent in our loan and lease portfolio. The Allowance is increased or decreased through the provisioning process. There is no exact method of predicting specific losses or amounts that ultimately may be charged-off on particular segments of the loan and lease portfolio. The Unfunded Reserve is a component of other liabilities and represents the estimate for probable credit losses inherent in unfunded commitments to extend credit. The level of the Unfunded Reserve is adjusted by recording an expense or recovery in other noninterest expense.

Management's evaluation of the adequacy of the reserve for credit losses is often the most critical of accounting estimates for a financial institution. Our determination of the amount of the reserve for credit losses is a critical accounting estimate as it requires

Table of Contents

significant reliance on the accuracy of credit risk ratings on individual borrowers, the use of estimates and significant judgment as to the amount and timing of expected future cash flows on impaired loans, significant reliance on estimated loss rates on homogenous portfolios, and consideration of our quantitative and qualitative evaluation of economic factors and trends. While our methodology in establishing the reserve for credit losses attributes portions of the Allowance and Unfunded Reserve to the commercial and consumer portfolio segments, the entire Allowance and Unfunded Reserve is available to absorb credit losses inherent in the total loan and lease portfolio and total amount of unfunded credit commitments, respectively.

The reserve for credit losses related to our commercial portfolio segment is generally most sensitive to the accuracy of credit risk ratings assigned to each borrower. Commercial loan risk ratings are evaluated based on each situation by experienced senior credit officers and are subject to periodic review by an independent internal team of credit specialists. The reserve for credit losses related to our consumer portfolio segment is generally most sensitive to economic assumptions and delinquency trends. The reserve for credit losses attributable to each portfolio segment also includes an amount for inherent risks not reflected in the historical analyses. Relevant factors include, but are not limited to, concentrations of credit risk (geographic, large borrower, and industry), economic trends and conditions, changes in underwriting standards, experience and depth of lending staff, trends in delinquencies, and the level of criticized and classified loans.

See Note 4 to the Consolidated Financial Statements and the "Corporate Risk Profile – Credit Risk" section in Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations ("MD&A") for more information on the Allowance and the Unfunded Reserve.

Fair Value Measurements

Fair value is the price that would be received to sell an asset or paid to transfer a liability in the principal or most advantageous market for an asset or liability in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date. The degree of management judgment involved in determining the fair value of a financial instrument is dependent upon the availability of quoted market prices or observable market inputs. For financial instruments that are traded actively and have quoted market prices or observable market inputs, there is minimal subjectivity involved in measuring fair value. However, when quoted market prices or observable market inputs are not fully available, significant management judgment may be necessary to estimate fair value. In developing our fair value measurements, we maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

The fair value hierarchy defines Level 1 and 2 valuations as those that are based on quoted prices for identical instruments traded in active markets and quoted prices for similar instruments in active markets, quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in markets that are not active, and model-based valuation techniques for which all significant assumptions are observable in the market. Level 3 valuations are based on model-based techniques that use at least one significant assumption not observable in the market. These unobservable assumptions reflect estimates of assumptions that we believe market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability.

Financial assets that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis include available-for-sale investment securities, loans held for sale, mortgage servicing rights, investments related to deferred compensation arrangements, and derivative financial instruments. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, $3.4 billion or 25% and $3.5 billion or 25%, respectively, of our total assets consisted of financial assets recorded at fair value on a recurring basis and most of these financial assets consisted of available-for-sale investment securities measured using information from a third-party pricing service. These investments in debt securities and mortgage-backed securities were all classified in either Levels 1 or 2 of the fair value hierarchy. Financial liabilities that are recorded at fair value on a recurring basis are comprised of derivative financial instruments. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, $33.6 million and $36.8 million, respectively, of our total liabilities consisted of financial liabilities recorded at fair value on a recurring basis. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, Level 3 financial assets recorded at fair value on a recurring basis were $47.1 million and $45.0 million, respectively, or less than 1% of our total assets, and was comprised of mortgage servicing rights and derivative financial instruments. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, Level 3 financial liabilities recorded at fair value on a recurring basis were $32.4 million and $35.8 million, respectively, or less than 1% of our total liabilities, and was comprised of derivative financial instruments.

Our third-party pricing service makes no representations or warranties that the pricing data provided to us is complete or free from errors, omissions, or defects. As a result, we have processes in place to monitor and periodically review the information provided to us by our third-party pricing service such as: 1) Our third-party pricing service provides us with documentation by asset class of inputs and methodologies used to value securities. We review this documentation to evaluate the inputs and valuation methodologies used to place securities into the appropriate level of the fair value hierarchy. This documentation is periodically updated by our third-party pricing service. Accordingly, transfers of securities within the fair value hierarchy are made if deemed necessary. 2) On a quarterly basis, management reviews the pricing information received from our third-party

Table of Contents

pricing service. This review process includes a comparison to non-binding third-party broker quotes, as well as a review of market-related conditions impacting the information provided by our third-party pricing service. We also identify investment securities which may have traded in illiquid or inactive markets by identifying instances of a significant decrease in the volume or frequency of trades relative to historic levels, as well as instances of a significant widening of the bid-ask spread in the brokered markets. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, management did not make adjustments to prices provided by our third-party pricing service as a result of illiquid or inactive markets. 3) On a quarterly basis, management also reviews a sample of securities priced by the Company's third-party pricing service to review significant assumptions and valuation methodologies used. Based on this review, management determines whether the current placement of the security in the fair value hierarchy is appropriate or whether transfers may be warranted. 4) On an annual basis, to the extent available, we obtain and review independent auditor's reports from our third-party pricing service related to controls placed in operation and tests of operating effectiveness. We did not note any significant control deficiencies in our review of the independent auditor's reports related to services rendered by our third-party pricing service. 5) Our third-party pricing service has also established processes for us to submit inquiries regarding quoted prices. Periodically, we will challenge the quoted prices provided by our third-party pricing service. Our third-party pricing service will review the inputs to the evaluation in light of the new market data presented by us. Our third-party pricing service may then affirm the original quoted price or may update the evaluation on a going forward basis.

Based on the composition of our investment securities portfolio, we believe that we have developed appropriate internal controls and performed appropriate due diligence procedures to prevent or detect material misstatements. See Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on our fair value measurements.

Leased Asset Residual Values

Lease financing receivables include a residual value component, which represents the estimated value of leased assets upon lease expiration. Our determination of residual value is derived from a variety of sources, including equipment valuation services, appraisals, and publicly available market data on recent sales transactions on similar equipment. The length of time until lease termination, the cyclical nature of equipment values, and the limited marketplace for re-sale of certain leased assets, are important variables considered in making this determination. We update our valuation analysis on an annual basis, or more frequently as warranted by events or circumstances. When we determine that the fair value is lower than the expected residual value at lease expiration, the difference is recognized as an asset impairment in the period in which the analysis is completed.

Income Taxes

We determine our liabilities for income taxes based on current tax regulation and interpretations in tax jurisdictions where our income is subject to taxation. Currently, we file tax returns in nine federal, state and local domestic jurisdictions, and four foreign jurisdictions. In estimating income taxes payable or receivable, we assess the relative merits and risks of the appropriate tax treatment considering statutory, judicial, and regulatory guidance in the context of each tax position. Accordingly, previously estimated liabilities are regularly reevaluated and adjusted, through the provision for income taxes. Changes in the estimate of income taxes payable or receivable occur periodically due to changes in tax rates, interpretations of tax law, the status of examinations being conducted by various taxing authorities, and newly enacted statutory, judicial and regulatory guidance that impact the relative merits and risks of each tax position. These changes, when they occur, may affect the provision for income taxes as well as current and deferred income taxes, and may be significant to our statements of income and condition.

Management's determination of the realization of net deferred tax assets is based upon management's judgment of various future events and uncertainties, including the timing and amount of future income, as well as the implementation of various tax planning strategies to maximize realization of the deferred tax assets. A valuation allowance is provided when it is more likely than not that some portion of the deferred tax asset will not be realized. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, we carried a valuation allowance of $5.1 million and $4.4 million, respectively, related to our deferred tax assets established in connection with our low-income housing investments.

We are also required to record a liability, referred to as an unrecognized tax benefit ("UTB"), for the entire amount of benefit taken in a prior or future income tax return when we determine that a tax position has a less than 50% likelihood of being accepted by the taxing authority. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, our liabilities for UTBs were $15.4 million and $13.6 million, respectively. See Note 16 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on income taxes.

Table of Contents

Overview

We are a regional financial services company serving businesses, consumers, and governments in Hawaii, Guam, and other Pacific Islands. Our main operating subsidiary, the Bank, was founded in 1897 and is the largest independent financial institution in Hawaii.

Exceptional people working together are the foundation for our success and enable us to build exceptional value for our customers, communities, shareholders, and each other. Excellence, integrity, respect, innovation, commitment, and teamwork are the core values for the way we do business. In striving to achieve our governing objective, our business plan is balanced between growth and risk management, including the flexibility to adjust, given the uncertainties of a slow economic recovery. We remain cautious about the local and national economy, interest rates, loan demand, and regulatory initiatives that are expected to impact the financial services industry. We intend to continue to focus on providing customers with a competitive mix of products and services, maintaining strong credit quality, improving expense management, and efficiently managing capital.

Hawaii Economy

Hawaii's economy continued to improve during the fourth quarter of 2012 primarily due to a strong visitor industry. In 2012, a record 8.0 million total visitors arrived in Hawaii, an increase of 9.6% compared to 2011. 2012 visitor arrivals exceeded the previous record high of 7.6 million visitors in 2006. Total visitor spending for 2012 increased by 18.7% compared to 2011 due to strong spending growth by U.S. and international visitors. The statewide seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate continued to decline during the fourth quarter of 2012 to 5.2% in December 2012, compared to 7.8% nationally. In 2012, the volume of single-family home sales on Oahu was 6.5% higher compared to 2011 and the volume of condominium sales on Oahu was 8.2% higher compared to 2011. Also in 2012, the median price of single-family home sales on Oahu was 7.8% higher compared to 2011 and the median price of condominium sales on Oahu was 5.8% higher compared to 2011. As of December 31, 2012, months of inventory of single-family homes and condominiums on Oahu remained low at approximately 2.5 months and 3.0 months, respectively.

Earnings Summary

Net income for 2012 was $166.1 million, an increase of $6.0 million or 4% compared to 2011. Diluted earnings per share were $3.67 in 2012, an increase of $0.28 or 8% compared to 2011. Our return on average assets was 1.22% in 2012, unchanged from 2011, and our return on average shareholders' equity was 16.23% in 2012, an increase of 54 basis points from 2011.

Our higher net income in 2012 was primarily due to the following:


•	The provision for credit losses (the "Provision") was $1.0 million in 2012, a decrease of $11.7 million or 92% compared to 2011. Although loan balances have grown in 2012, credit quality trends and the underlying risk profile of our loan and lease portfolio continued to improve, with lower levels of net charge-offs, non-performing assets, and higher risk loans and leases outstanding.

•

Mortgage banking income was $35.6 million in 2012, an increase of $21.0 million compared to 2011. This increase was primarily due to higher loan originations and sales activity in 2012, a result of low interest rates. Residential mortgage loan originations were $1.2 billion in 2012, a $256.9 million or 28% increase compared to 2011. Residential mortgage loan sales were $600.9 million in 2012, a $166.7 million or 38% increase from 2011. Also contributing to the increase in mortgage banking income was the increase in margins at which we were able to sell loans in the secondary market.

•

Other noninterest expense was $69.7 million in 2012, a decrease of $15.7 million or 18% compared to 2011. Our financial results for 2011 included a $9.0 million accrual related to the settlement of overdraft litigation recorded in the second quarter of 2011. Also contributing to the decrease in other noninterest expense in 2012 was a $2.2 million decrease in mileage program travel expenses, a $1.5 million credit for the reduction in insurance reserves, and a $1.5 million decrease in operational losses.

These items were partially offset by the following:


•	Net interest income was $377.3 million in 2012, a decrease of $12.9 million or 3% compared to 2011. This decrease was primarily due to lower yields on loans and investment securities. During this period of low interest rates over the past several years, we have maintained discipline in our loan underwriting and have also invested conservatively.

Table of Contents


•	Debit card income, recorded as a component of fees, exchange, and other services charges in the consolidated statements of income, was $14.9 million in 2012, a decrease of $10.9 million or 42% compared to 2011. This decrease was primarily due to changes in debit card interchange rules as a result of the pricing restrictions imposed by the Durbin Amendment which was effective October 1, 2011.


•	We recorded a nominal amount of net investment securities losses in 2012, while net investment securities gains were $6.4 million in 2011. The amount and timing of our sale of investment securities are dependent on a number of factors, including our efforts to preserve capital levels while managing duration and extension risk.

•

The provision for income taxes was $76.2 million in 2012, an increase of $9.3 million or 14% compared to 2011. We recorded credits to the provision for income taxes of $10.5 million in 2011 related to the reversal of liabilities for unrecognized state tax benefits, the release of general reserves due to the closing of certain IRS audit tax years, and the release of a valuation allowance related to the expected utilization of capital losses on the future sale of a low-income housing investment.

We maintained a strong balance sheet throughout 2012, with adequate reserves for credit losses, and high levels of liquidity and capital. In particular:

•

The allowance for loan and lease losses (the "Allowance") was $128.9 million as of December 31, 2012, a decrease of $9.7 million or 7% from December 31, 2011. The ratio of our Allowance to total loans and leases outstanding decreased to 2.20% as of December 31, 2012, compared to 2.50% as of December 31, 2011. The decrease in the level of the Allowance was consistent with improving credit quality metrics and an improving Hawaii economy. Absent significant deterioration in the economy and assuming continued improvement and/or stability in credit quality, we may decrease the level of the Allowance in future periods.

•

Total deposits were $11.5 billion as of December 31, 2012, an increase of $936.9 million or 9% from December 31, 2011. We believe that our strong brand continues to play a key role in new account acquisitions. During 2012, we continued to grow our deposit balances while reducing associated funding costs. The growth in deposit balances was due, in part, to local government entities transferring funds from repurchase agreements to time deposits during 2012.

•

We continued to invest excess liquidity in high-grade investment securities. As of December 31, 2012, the total carrying value of our investment securities portfolio was $7.0 billion, a slight decrease from $7.1 billion as of December 31, 2011. In 2012, we reduced our positions in U.S. Treasury Notes and mortgage-backed securities issued by the Government National Mortgage Association ("Ginnie Mae"). We re-invested these proceeds, in part, into state and municipal bond holdings.

•

Total shareholders' equity was $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2012, an increase of $19.0 million or 2% from December 31, 2011. We continued to return capital to our shareholders in the form of share repurchases and dividends. During 2012, we repurchased 1.7 million shares of common stock at a total cost of $79.5 million under our share repurchase program. We also paid cash dividends of $81.6 million during 2012.

In 2013, we may see continued economic recovery and improving prospects for loan growth. However, we remain cautious about the uncertainties of government regulatory initiatives, the slow pace of economic recovery nationally, market interest rates, as well as the numerous fiscal and budgetary challenges facing our federal and local governments.

Table of Contents

Analysis of Statements of Income

Average balances, related income and expenses, and resulting yields and rates are presented in Table 1. An analysis of the change in net interest income, on a taxable-equivalent basis, is presented in Table 2.



Average Balances and Interest Rates – Taxable-Equivalent Basis															Table 1
	2012						2011						2010
(dollars in millions)	Average Balance		Income/ Expense		Yield/ Rate		Average Balance		Income/ Expense		Yield/ Rate		Average Balance		Income/ Expense		Yield/ Rate
Earning Assets
Interest-Bearing Deposits	$	3.7	$	—	0.26	%	$	4.2	$	—	0.19	%	$	4.7	$	—	0.59	%
Funds Sold	263.5		0.5		0.20		380.2		0.8		0.22		390.2		1.1		0.28
Investment Securities
Available-for-Sale	3,346.3		75.0		2.24		4,439.8		105.4		2.37		5,854.1		170.1		2.91
Held-to-Maturity	3,636.7		95.0		2.61		2,279.6		72.2		3.16		154.2		6.5		4.22
Loans Held for Sale	14.7		0.6		4.29		11.0		0.5		4.54		10.8		0.9		8.51
Loans and Leases ¹
Commercial and Industrial	800.2		31.3		3.91		790.6		31.8		4.02		764.2		33.7		4.41
Commercial Mortgage	988.2		42.9		4.34		887.1		42.8		4.82		827.7		42.0		5.07
Construction	101.9		5.1		5.04		80.1		4.0		5.06		95.4		4.8		5.08
Commercial Lease Financing	283.3		6.8		2.39		322.1		8.7		2.71		385.1		11.3		2.92
Residential Mortgage	2,349.6		111.3		4.74		2,126.9		111.5		5.24		2,105.6		118.7		5.64
Home Equity	773.2		33.4		4.31		784.9		37.4		4.76		863.7		43.2		4.99
Automobile	196.8		11.7		5.96		194.4		13.2		6.78		241.2		18.3		7.58
Other ²	187.1		15.2		8.11		163.8		12.4		7.57		189.6		14.5		7.66
Total Loans and Leases	5,680.3		257.7		4.54		5,349.9		261.8		4.89		5,472.5		286.5		5.23
Other	79.9		1.1		1.41		79.9		1.1		1.40		79.8		1.1		1.39
Total Earning Assets ³	13,025.1		429.9		3.30		12,544.6		441.8		3.52		11,966.3		466.2		3.90
Cash and Noninterest-Bearing Deposits	137.2						135.3						229.6
Other Assets	446.9						425.1						491.8
Total Assets	$	13,609.2					$	13,105.0					$	12,687.7

Interest-Bearing Liabilities
Interest-Bearing Deposits
Demand	$	1,938.6	$	0.5	0.03	%	$	1,786.7	$	0.7	0.04	%	$	1,715.8	$	1.1	0.06	%
Savings	4,447.8		4.5		0.10		4,501.0		7.3		0.16		4,465.0		14.7		0.33
Time	1,524.6		7.4		0.48		1,067.8		10.3		0.96		1,088.7		13.4		1.23
Total Interest-Bearing Deposits	7,911.0		12.4		0.16		7,355.5		18.3		0.25		7,269.5		29.2		0.40
Short-Term Borrowings	15.1		—		0.14		18.2		—		0.11		23.3		—		0.13
Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase	1,335.7		28.9		2.16		1,845.8		29.2		1.58		1,700.2		26.0		1.53
Long-Term Debt	31.5		1.9		6.10		31.6		2.0		6.23		61.0		3.5		5.81
Total Interest-Bearing Liabilities	9,293.3		43.2		0.47		9,251.1		49.5		0.53		9,054.0		58.7		0.65
Net Interest Income			$	386.7					$	392.3					$	407.5
Interest Rate Spread					2.83	%					2.99	%					3.25	%
Net Interest Margin					2.97	%					3.13	%					3.41	%
Noninterest-Bearing Demand Deposits	3,024.0						2,569.2						2,239.6
Other Liabilities	268.6						264.6						381.4
Shareholders' Equity	1,023.3						1,020.1						1,012.7
Total Liabilities and Shareholders' Equity	$	13,609.2					$	13,105.0					$	12,687.7

¹Non-performing loans and leases are included in the respective average loan and lease balances. Income, if any, on such loans and leases is recognized on a cash basis.

²Comprised of other consumer revolving credit, installment, and consumer lease financing.

³Interest income includes taxable-equivalent basis adjustments, based upon a federal statutory tax rate of 35%, of $9,473,000 for 2012, $2,080,000 for 2011, and $975,000

for 2010.

Table of Contents



Analysis of Change in Net Interest Income – Taxable-Equivalent Basis													Table 2
	Year Ended December 31, 2012 Compared to 2011									Year Ended December 31, 2011 Compared to 2010
(dollars in millions)	Volume ¹			Rate ¹			Total			Volume ¹			Rate ¹			Total
Change in Interest Income:
Funds Sold	$	(0.2	)	$	(0.1	)	$	(0.3	)	$	—		$	(0.3	)	$	(0.3	)
Investment Securities
Available-for-Sale	(24.8		)	(5.6		)	(30.4		)	(36.5		)	(28.2		)	(64.7		)
Held-to-Maturity	37.1			(14.3		)	22.8			67.7			(2.0		)	65.7
Loans Held for Sale	0.1			—			0.1			—			(0.4		)	(0.4		)
Loans and Leases
Commercial and Industrial	0.4			(0.9		)	(0.5		)	1.1			(3.0		)	(1.9		)
Commercial Mortgage	4.6			(4.5		)	0.1			2.9			(2.1		)	0.8
Construction	1.1			0.0			1.1			(0.8		)	0.0			(0.8		)
Commercial Lease Financing	(1.0		)	(0.9		)	(1.9		)	(1.8		)	(0.8		)	(2.6		)
Residential Mortgage	11.1			(11.3		)	(0.2		)	1.2			(8.4		)	(7.2		)
Home Equity	(0.5		)	(3.5		)	(4.0		)	(3.8		)	(2.0		)	(5.8		)
Automobile	0.1			(1.6		)	(1.5		)	(3.3		)	(1.8		)	(5.1		)
Other ²	1.9			0.9			2.8			(1.9		)	(0.2		)	(2.1		)
Total Loans and Leases	17.7			(21.8		)	(4.1		)	(6.4		)	(18.3		)	(24.7		)
Total Change in Interest Income	29.9			(41.8		)	(11.9		)	24.8			(49.2		)	(24.4		)

Change in Interest Expense:
Interest-Bearing Deposits
Demand	0.1			(0.3		)	(0.2		)	—			(0.4		)	(0.4		)
Savings	(0.1		)	(2.7		)	(2.8		)	0.1			(7.5		)	(7.4		)
Time	3.4			(6.3		)	(2.9		)	(0.2		)	(2.9		)	(3.1		)
Total Interest-Bearing Deposits	3.4			(9.3		)	(5.9		)	(0.1		)	(10.8		)	(10.9		)
Securities Sold Under Agreements to Repurchase	(9.4		)	9.1			(0.3		)	2.3			0.9			3.2
Long-Term Debt	—			(0.1		)	(0.1		)	(1.8		)	0.3			(1.5		)
Total Change in Interest Expense	(6.0		)	(0.3		)	(6.3		)	0.4			(9.6		)	(9.2		)
Change in Net Interest Income	$	35.9		$	(41.5	)	$	(5.6	)	$	24.4		$	(39.6	)	$	(15.2	)

¹The change in interest income and expense not solely due to changes in volume or rate has been allocated on a pro-rata basis to the volume and rate columns.

²Comprised of other consumer revolving credit, installment, and consumer lease financing.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income is affected by the size and mix of our balance sheet components as well as the spread between interest earned on assets and interest paid on liabilities. Net interest margin is defined as net interest income, on a taxable-equivalent basis, as a percentage of average earnings assets.

Net interest income, on a taxable-equivalent basis, decreased by $5.6 million or 1% in 2012 compared to 2011. Net interest margin decreased by 16 basis points in 2012 compared to 2011. Yields on our earning assets decreased by 22 basis points in 2012 compared to 2011, reflective of investments and loans repricing at lower rates. Yields on our investment securities portfolio decreased by 21 basis points in 2012 compared to 2011, reflective of the run-off of higher yielding securities with proceeds, in part, being invested in lower yielding securities. Yields on our loans and leases declined in nearly every category in 2012 compared to 2011. Partially offsetting the lower yields on our earning assets was a decrease in deposit funding costs. Rates paid on our interest-bearing liabilities decreased by 6 basis points in 2012 compared to 2011. Rates paid on our savings deposits decreased by 6 basis points in 2012 compared to 2011 and rates paid on our time deposits decreased by 48 basis points in 2012

Table of Contents

compared to 2011, partially offset by a 58 basis point increase on our rates paid on securities sold under agreements to repurchase as local government entities transferred their funds into time deposits.

Average balances of our earning assets increased by $480.5 million or 4% in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to an increase in our investment securities portfolio and residential mortgage loan portfolio. In 2012, we reduced our positions in U.S. Treasury Notes and mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae and re-invested these proceeds, in part, into state and municipal bond holdings and debt securities issued by the Small Business Administration (the "SBA"). Average balances in our U.S. Treasury Notes decreased by $137.7 million and average balances in our mortgage-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae decreased by $344.9 million in 2012 compared to 2011. Average balances of our state and municipal bond holdings increased by $511.8 million and average balances of our SBA securities increased by $253.1 million in 2012 compared to 2011. Also contributing to the increase in average balances of our earning assets was a $222.7 million increase in the average balance of our residential mortgage loan portfolio primarily due to strong refinancing activity, resulting from low interest rates, as well as our decision to add more fixed-rate conforming saleable loans to our portfolio. Average balances of our interest-bearing liabilities remained relatively unchanged at $9.3 billion in 2012. Average balances of our interest-bearing deposits increased by $555.5 million in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to an increase in average public time deposit balances. This was partially offset by a $510.1 million decrease in average public repurchase agreement balances due to the transfer of local government entities' funds to time deposits noted above.

Net interest income, on a taxable-equivalent basis, decreased by $15.2 million or 4% in 2011 compared to 2010. Net interest margin decreased by 28 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010. Yields on our earning assets decreased by 38 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010, reflective of higher levels of liquidity, lower average loan balances, and lower yields on loans and investment securities. Yields on our loans and leases declined in every category in 2011 compared to 2010. Yields on our investment securities portfolio decreased by 30 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010. Partially offsetting the lower yields on our earning assets was a decrease in our funding costs primarily due to lower rates paid on our interest-bearing deposits, reflective of the re-pricing of our deposits at lower interest rates. Rates paid on our savings deposits decreased by 17 basis points and rates paid on our time deposits decreased by 27 basis points in 2011 compared to 2010, partially offset by a 5 basis point increase on our rates paid on securities sold under agreements to repurchase.

Average balances of our earning assets increased by $578.3 million or 5% in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to an increase in our investment securities portfolio. In 2011, we changed the composition of our investment securities portfolio. We increased our holdings in U.S. Treasury Notes and securities issued by the SBA in an effort to further reduce the average duration of our portfolio. Average balances of our debt securities issued by the U.S. Treasury increased by $363.4 million and average balances of our SBA securities increased by $165.0 million in 2011 compared to 2010. Average balances of mortgaged-backed securities issued by Ginnie Mae also increased by $232.6 million in 2011 compared to 2010. Partially offsetting the increase in average balances of our earning assets was a $122.6 million decrease in average loan and lease balances resulting from continued paydowns along with subdued demand for new lending opportunities. Average balances of our interest-bearing liabilities increased by $197.0 million or 2% in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to growth in our interest-bearing deposits and securities sold under agreements to repurchase. Average balances of our interest-bearing demand deposits increased by $70.9 million primarily due to growth in our premier interest-bearing demand products. Average savings deposits increased by $36.0 million primarily due to an $83.7 million growth in our premier savings products and a $24.4 million growth in our personal savings product, partially offset by a $65.8 million decline in our business money market savings products. These increases were partially offset by a decline in our average time deposits as some customers moved their funds to more liquid deposits. Average balances in our securities sold under agreements to repurchase increased by $145.6 million in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to new placements to accommodate local government entities, partially offset by the prepayment of three repurchase agreements with private institutions in the third quarter of 2010.

Provision for Credit Losses

The Provision reflects our judgment of the expense or benefit necessary to achieve the appropriate amount of the Allowance. We maintain the Allowance at levels adequate to cover our estimate of probable credit losses as of the end of the reporting period. The Allowance is determined through detailed quarterly analyses of our loan and lease portfolio. The Allowance is based on our loss experience and changes in the economic environment, as well as an ongoing assessment of our credit quality. We recorded a Provision of $1.0 million in 2012, $12.7 million in 2011, and $55.3 million in 2010. The lower Provision recorded in 2012 and 2011 was reflective of continued improvements in our credit quality metrics and an improving Hawaii economy. For further discussion on the Allowance, see the "Corporate Risk Profile – Credit Risk" section in MD&A.

Table of Contents

Noninterest Income

Table 3 presents the major components of noninterest income for 2012, 2011, and 2010.



Noninterest Income														Table 3
	Year Ended December 31,							Dollar Change						Percent Change
(dollars in thousands)	2012			2011		2010		2012 to 2011			2011 to 2010			2012 to 2011		2011 to 2010
Trust and Asset Management	$	45,229		$	45,046	$	44,889	$	183		$	157		—	%	—	%
Mortgage Banking	35,644			14,664		18,576		20,980			(3,912		)	143		(21	)
Service Charges on Deposit Accounts	37,621			38,733		53,039		(1,112		)	(14,306		)	(3	)	(27	)
Fees, Exchange, and Other Service Charges	48,965			60,227		61,006		(11,262		)	(779		)	(19	)	(1	)
Investment Securities Gains (Losses), Net	(77		)	6,366		42,848		(6,443		)	(36,482		)	(101	)	(85	)
Insurance	9,553			10,957		9,961		(1,404		)	996			(13	)	10
Other Income:
Income from Bank-Owned Life Insurance	6,805			6,329		6,357		476			(28		)	8		—
Gain on Mutual Fund Sale	489			1,956		2,852		(1,467		)	(896		)	(75	)	(31	)
Gain on the Sale of Leased Assets	3,335			1,001		1,126		2,334			(125		)	233		(11	)
Other	12,722			12,376		14,604		346			(2,228		)	3		(15	)
Total Other Income	23,351			21,662		24,939		1,689			(3,277		)	8		(13	)
Total Noninterest Income	$	200,286		$	197,655	$	255,258	$	2,631		$	(57,603	)	1	%	(23	)%

Trust and asset management income is comprised of fees earned from the management and administration of trusts and other customer assets. These fees are largely based upon the market value of the assets that we manage and the fee rate charged to customers. Total trust assets under administration were $10.1 billion, $9.3 billion, and $10.1 billion as of December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Trust and asset management income remained relatively unchanged in 2012 compared to 2011. Testamentary fees increased $0.8 million and agency fees rose $0.4 million in 2012 compared to 2011. This was partially offset by a $0.9 million decrease in special service fees which were the result of two large termination fees recorded in the first quarter of 2011. Trust and asset management income remained relatively unchanged in 2011 compared to 2010 as well. Our unified managed accounts, which were introduced in the latter half of 2010, generated an additional $1.1 million of fee revenue in 2011 compared to 2010. In addition, agency fees increased by $0.9 million and irrevocable trust fees rose by $0.6 million in 2011 primarily due to higher fee rates for assets previously invested in our proprietary mutual funds, which were sold/liquidated in July 2010. These increases were largely offset by a $2.9 million decrease in mutual fund investment management fees mainly due to the sale/liquidation of our proprietary mutual funds noted above.

Mortgage banking income is highly influenced by mortgage interest rates and the housing market. Mortgage banking income increased by $21.0 million or 143% in 2012 compared to 2011. This increase was primarily due to higher loan originations, sales volume, and margins in 2012 compared to 2011. Residential mortgage loan originations were $1.2 billion in 2012, a $256.9 million or 28% increase compared to 2011. Residential mortgage loan sales were $600.9 million in 2012, a $166.7 million or 38% increase compared to 2011. As noted above, we sold mortgage loans in the secondary market at higher margins in 2012 compared to 2011. Mortgage banking income decreased by $3.9 million or 21% in 2011 compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to lower loan origination and sales volume in 2011 compared to 2010. Residential mortgage loan originations were $925.7 million in 2011, an $89.9 million or 9% decrease compared to 2010. Residential mortgage loan sales were $434.2 million in 2011, a $235.6 million or 35% decrease from 2010. Contributing to lower mortgage loan sales was our decision to add more fixed-rate conforming saleable loans to our portfolio in 2011.

Service charges on deposit accounts decreased by $1.1 million or 3% in 2012 compared to 2011. This decrease was primarily due to a decline in account analysis fees as a result of reduced charges applied against the customers' earnings credit rate. Service charges on deposit accounts decreased by $14.3 million or 27% in 2011 compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to a $12.3 million decline in overdraft fees mainly the result of several processing changes implemented in the first quarter of 2011, combined with the Federal Reserve Board's amendments to Regulation E. Beginning on July 1, 2010 for new customers and August 15, 2010 for existing customers, those amendments prohibited a financial institution from assessing a fee to complete an ATM withdrawal or one-time debit card transaction which will cause an overdraft unless the customer consents in advance ("opts-in"). In addition, account analysis fees decreased by $1.4 million in 2011 primarily due to higher investable balances resulting in larger earnings credit rates granted to our customers.

Fees, exchange, and other service charges are primarily comprised of debit card income, fees from ATMs, merchant service activity, and other loan fees and service charges. Fees, exchange, and other service charges decreased by $11.3 million or 19% in

Table of Contents

2012 compared to 2011. This decrease was primarily due to a $10.9 million decline in debit card income resulting mainly from the pricing restrictions imposed by the Durbin Amendment, which was effective October 1, 2011. Fees, exchange, and other service charges decreased by $0.8 million or 1% in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to a $0.8 million decrease in ATM fees and a $0.5 million decrease in other loan fees. Debit card income was also adversely affected in the fourth quarter of 2011 by the pricing restrictions imposed by the Durbin Amendment noted above. These items were partially offset by a $0.7 million increase in debit card income resulting mainly from growth in debit card usage and an increase in mileage program fees.

Sales of investment securities resulted in a $0.1 million net loss in 2012, a $6.4 million net gain in 2011, and a $42.8 million net gain in 2010. The amount and timing of our sales of investment securities are dependent on a number of factors, including our efforts to preserve capital levels while managing duration and extension risk.

Insurance income decreased by $1.4 million or 13% in 2012 compared to 2011 primarily due to lower sales of our annuity products. The low interest rate environment, in particular, continues to adversely affect sales of our fixed annuity products.

Insurance income increased by $1.0 million or 10% in 2011 compared to 2010 primarily due to an increase in income from our variable annuity products.

Other noninterest income increased by $1.7 million or 8% in 2012 compared to 2011. This increase was primarily due to a lessee exercising its early buy-out option on two cargo ship leveraged leases which resulted in a pre-tax gain of $3.5 million in the first quarter of 2012. In addition, we received a $0.5 million contingent payment in the third quarter of 2012 related to the 2010 sale of our proprietary mutual funds. Also contributing to the increase was a $0.5 million increase in income from bank-owned life insurance. These items were partially offset by a $2.0 million contingent payment received in the third quarter of 2011 related to the 2010 sale of our proprietary mutual funds, combined with a $1.0 million pre-tax loss related to the sale and termination of an aircraft lease in the first quarter of 2012. Other noninterest income decreased by $3.3 million or 13% in 2011 compared to 2010. This decrease was primarily due to net gains of $2.9 million resulting from the sale of our proprietary mutual funds in the third quarter of 2010, partially offset by the aforementioned $2.0 million contingent payment received in the third quarter of 2011 related to the 2010 mutual funds sale. In addition, we recognized a $0.9 million contingent payment received in the third quarter of 2010 related to the sale of our retail insurance brokerage operation in the second quarter of 2009.

Table of Contents

Noninterest Expense

Table 4 presents the major components of noninterest expense for 2012, 2011, and 2010.

Noninterest Expense

Table 4

Year Ended December 31,

Dollar Change

Percent Change

(dollars in thousands)

2012

2011

2010

2012
to 2011

2011
to 2010