UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
(Mark One)
| T | | 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
| £ | | Transition Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 |
Commission file number: 001-31567
Central Pacific Financial Corp.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
| Hawaii | | 99-0212597 |
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization) | | (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) |
| 220 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii | | 96813 |
| (Address of principal executive offices) | | (Zip Code) |
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:
(808) 544-0500
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
| | Title of each class | | | | Name of each exchange on which registered | |
Common Stock, No Par Value Preferred Share Purchase Rights | | New York Stock Exchange 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. YesoNox
Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yeso Nox
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. Yesx Noo
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yesx Noo
Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. x
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 definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.
Large Accelerated Filero Accelerated Filer x Non-Accelerated Filer o Smaller Reporting Company o
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yeso Nox
As of June 30, 2012, the aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $314,658,000. As of February 8, 2013, the number of shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding was 41,912,516 shares.
DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders are incorporated by reference into Part III of this annual report on Form 10-K to the extent stated herein. The proxy statement will be filed within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this annual report on Form 10-K.
PART 1
Forward-Looking Statements and Factors that Could Affect Future Results
Certain statements contained in this annual report on Form 10-K that are not statements of historical fact constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the “Act”), notwithstanding that such statements are not specifically identified. In addition, certain statements may be contained in our future filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), in press releases and in oral and written statements made by us or with our approval that are not statements of historical fact and constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Act. Examples of forward-looking statements include but are not limited to: (i) projections of revenues, expenses, income or loss, earnings or loss per share, the payment or nonpayment of dividends, capital structure and other financial items; (ii) statements of plans, objectives and expectations of Central Pacific Financial Corp. or its management or Board of Directors, including those relating to business plans, products or services and regulatory developments and regulatory actions; (iii) statements of future economic performance; and (iv) statements of assumptions underlying such statements. Words such as “believes,” “plans,” “anticipates,” “expects,” “intends,” “forecasts,” “hopes,” “targeted,” “continue,” “remain,” “will,” “should,” “may” and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements.
Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties that may cause actual results to differ materially from those in such statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include but are not limited to:
| · | the effect of, and our failure to comply with all of the requirements of any regulatory orders or regulatory agreements we are or may become subject to; |
| · | our ability to continue making progress on our recovery plan; |
| · | oversupply of inventory and adverse conditions in the Hawaii and California real estate markets and recurring weakness in the construction industry; |
| · | adverse changes in the financial performance and/or condition of our borrowers and, as a result, increased loan delinquency rates, further deterioration in asset quality and further losses in our loan portfolio; |
| · | the impact of local, national, and international economies and events (including natural disasters such as wildfires, tsunamis, storms and earthquakes) on the Company’s business and operations and on tourism, the military and other major industries operating within the Hawaii market and any other markets in which the Company does business; |
| · | the impact of international economic conditions, including issues associated with the European debt crisis; |
| · | deterioration or malaise in domestic economic conditions, including the continued destabilizing factors in the financial industry and deterioration of the real estate market, as well as the impact of declining levels of consumer and business confidence in the state of the economy in general and in financial institutions in particular; |
| · | changes in estimates of future reserve requirements based upon the periodic review thereof under relevant regulatory and accounting requirements; |
| · | the impact of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), changes in capital standards, other regulatory reform, including but not limited to regulations promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, government-sponsored enterprise reform, and any related rules and regulations which affect our business operations and competitiveness; |
| · | the costs and effects of legal and regulatory developments, including the resolution of legal proceedings or regulatory or other governmental inquiries and the results of regulatory examinations or reviews; |
| · | the effects of and changes in trade, monetary and fiscal policies and laws, including the interest rate policies of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “FRB” of the “Federal Reserve”); |
| · | inflation, interest rate, securities market and monetary fluctuations; |
| · | negative trends in our market capitalization and adverse changes in the price of the Company’s common shares; |
| · | acts of war or terrorism; |
| · | changes in consumer spending, borrowings and savings habits; |
| · | changes in the competitive environment among financial holding companies and other financial service providers; |
| · | the effect of changes in accounting policies and practices, as may be adopted by the regulatory agencies, as well as the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the Financial Accounting Standards Board and other accounting standard setters; |
| · | our ability to attract and retain skilled employees; |
| · | changes in our organization, compensation and benefit plans; and |
| · | our success at managing the risks involved in the foregoing items. |
For information with respect to factors that could cause actual results to differ from the expectations stated in the forward-looking statements, see also “Risk Factors” under Part I, Item 1A of this report. We urge investors to consider all of these factors carefully in evaluating the forward-looking statements contained in this Form 10-K. Forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made. We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events except as required by law.
General
Central Pacific Financial Corp., a Hawaii corporation and bank holding company registered under the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended (the “BHC Act”), was organized on February 1, 1982. Our principal business is to serve as a holding company for our bank subsidiary, Central Pacific Bank, which was incorporated in its present form in the state of Hawaii on March 16, 1982 in connection with the holding company reorganization. Its predecessor entity was incorporated in the state of Hawaii on January 15, 1954.
When we refer to “the Company,” “we,” “us” or “our,” we mean Central Pacific Financial Corp. and its subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. When we refer to “Central Pacific Financial Corp.,” “CPF” or to the holding company, we are referring to the parent company on a standalone basis. We refer to Central Pacific Bank herein as “our bank” or “the bank.”
Through our bank and its subsidiaries, we offer full-service commercial banking with 34 bank branches and 116 ATMs located throughout the state of Hawaii. Our administrative and main offices are located in Honolulu and we have 27 branches on the island of Oahu. We operate four branches on the island of Maui, two branches on the island of Hawaii and one branch on the island of Kauai. Our bank’s deposits are insured by the FDIC up to applicable limits. The bank is not a member of the Federal Reserve System.
Central Pacific Bank is a full-service commercial bank offering a broad range of banking products and services, including accepting time and demand deposits and originating loans. Our loans include commercial loans, construction loans, commercial and residential mortgage loans and consumer loans.
We derive our income primarily from interest and fees on loans, interest on investment securities and fees received in connection with deposit and other services. Our major operating expenses are the interest paid by our bank on deposits and borrowings, salaries and employee benefits and general operating expenses. Our bank relies substantially on a foundation of locally generated deposits. For financial reporting purposes, we have the following three reportable segments: (1) Banking Operations, (2) Treasury and (3) All Others. For further information about our reporting segments, including information about the assets and operating results of each, see “Note 26 – Segment Information” in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.
Our operations, like those of other financial institutions that operate in our market, are significantly influenced by economic conditions in Hawaii, including the strength of the real estate market, as well as the fiscal and regulatory policies of the federal and state government and the regulatory authorities that govern financial institutions. See “—Supervision and Regulation” below for other information about the regulation of our holding company and bank.
As previously disclosed, we adopted and implemented a recovery plan in March 2010 to improve our financial health by completing a significant recapitalization, reducing our credit risk exposure and returning to profitability by focusing on our core businesses and traditional markets in Hawaii.
Through December 31, 2012, we have accomplished a number of key milestones in our recovery plan, including:
| · | On February 18, 2011, we successfully completed a $325 million capital raise (the “Private Placement”). Concurrently with the completion of the Private Placement, we exchanged our Troubled Assets Relief Program (“TARP”) preferred stock and accrued and unpaid dividends thereon for common stock (the “TARP Exchange”). |
| · | On May 6, 2011, we successfully completed a $20 million Rights Offering (the “Rights Offering”). |
| · | In May 2011, our Consent Order was lifted and replaced with the Memorandum of Understanding with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) and the Hawaii Division of Financial Institutions (“DFI”), effective May 5, 2011 (the “Bank MOU”) as further described below. On October 26, 2012, the Bank MOU was terminated. |
| · | In November 2011, the memorandum of understanding relating to compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act (the “BSA MOU”) that the bank entered into with the FDIC and DFI was terminated. |
| · | We maintained a strong capital position with tier 1 risk-based capital, total risk-based capital and leverage capital ratios as of December 31, 2012 of 22.54%, 23.83%, and 14.32%, respectively, compared to 22.94%, 24.24%, and 13.78%, respectively, as of December 31, 2011, and 7.64%, 8.98%, and 4.42%, respectively, as of December 31, 2010. Our capital ratios continue to exceed the levels required for a “well-capitalized” regulatory designation. |
| · | We reported eight consecutive profitable quarters with net income totaling $47.4 million and $36.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. |
| · | We reduced our nonperforming assets by $105.6 million to $90.0 million at December 31, 2012 from $195.6 million at December 31, 2011. Our nonperforming assets at December 31, 2011 were reduced by $107.2 million from $302.8 million at December 31, 2010. |
| · | We significantly reduced our construction and development loan portfolio as of December 31, 2012 to $96.2 million, or 4.4% of our total loan portfolio. At December 31, 2011 and 2010, this portfolio totaled $161.1 million and $313.8 million, or 7.8% and 14.5% of our total loan portfolio, respectively. |
| · | We maintained an allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of total loans and leases of 4.37% at December 31, 2012, compared to 5.91% and 8.89% at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In addition, we maintained an allowance for loan and lease losses as a percentage of nonperforming assets of 107.10% at December 31, 2012, compared to 62.42% and 63.69% at December 31, 2011 and 2010, respectively. |
| · | We reduced total outstanding borrowings with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle (the “FHLB”) to $32,000 at December 31, 2012 from $50.0 million at December 31, 2011 and $551.3 million at December 31, 2010. |
In addition, on February 12, 2013, the Written Agreement that we entered into with the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco (“FRBSF”) and DFI in July 2010 was terminated.
We intend to continue to execute on our recovery plan and focus on, among other things, improving our asset quality, increasing profitability from our banking operations, enhancing our cross-selling of products and services to our customers, improving our efficiency ratio and operating efficiencies and effectively competing in the Hawaii market.
Our Services
We offer a full range of banking services and products to businesses, professionals and individuals. We provide our customers with an array of loan products, including residential mortgage loans, commercial and consumer loans and lines of credit, commercial real estate loans and construction loans.
Through our bank, we concentrate our lending activities in four principal areas:
| (1) | Residential Mortgage Lending. Residential mortgage loans include both fixed and adjustable-rate loans primarily secured by single-family, owner-occupied residences in Hawaii. We typically require loan-to-value ratios of not more than 80%, although higher levels are permitted with accompanying mortgage insurance. First mortgage loans secured by residential properties generally carry a moderate level of credit risk, with an average loan size of approximately $0.4 million and marketable collateral. Changes in interest rates, the economic recession and other market factors have impacted, and future changes will likely continue to impact, the marketability and value of collateral and the financial condition of our borrowers and thus the level of credit risk inherent in the portfolio. |
| | Since our August 2005 acquisition of Hawaii HomeLoans, Inc., now known as Central Pacific HomeLoans, a division of the bank, (“CPHL”), we have grown our market position in the residential mortgage origination arena in Hawaii with dedicated mortgage lending specialists on all major islands in Hawaii. The majority of our residential mortgage loan originations are sold in the secondary market. |
| (2) | Commercial Lending and Leasing. Loans in this category consist primarily of term loans, lines of credit and equipment leases to small and middle-market businesses and professionals in the state of Hawaii. The borrower’s business is typically regarded as the principal source of repayment, although our underwriting policies and practices generally require additional sources of collateral, including real estate and other business assets, as well as personal guarantees where possible to mitigate risk and help to reduce credit losses. |
| (3) | Commercial Real Estate Lending. Loans in this category consist of loans secured by commercial real estate, including but not limited to, structures and facilities to support activities designated as industrial, warehouse, general office, retail, health care, religious and multi-family dwellings. Our underwriting policy generally requires net cash flow from the property to cover the debt service while maintaining an appropriate amount of reserve and permits consideration of liquidation of the collateral as a secondary source of repayment. Financing of commercial real estate projects is subject to a high degree of credit risk. The limited supply of land at a given commercially attractive location, the long economic life of the assets, the long delivery time frames required for the development and construction of major projects and high interest rate sensitivity have given commercial real estate markets a long history of significant cyclical fluctuations and volatility. |
| (4) | Construction Lending. Construction lending encompasses the financing of residential and commercial construction projects. Similar to commercial real estate lending, construction projects are subject to a high degree of credit risk given the long delivery time frames for projects. |
Beyond the lending function described above, we also offer a full range of deposit products and services including checking, savings and time deposits, cash management and internet banking services, trust services and retail brokerage services.
Our Market Area and Competition
Based on deposit market share among FDIC-insured financial institutions in Hawaii, Central Pacific Bank was the fourth-largest depository institution in the state at December 31, 2012.
The banking and financial services industry in the state of Hawaii generally, and particularly in our target market areas, is highly competitive. We compete for loans, deposits and customers with other commercial banks, savings banks, securities and brokerage companies, mortgage companies, insurance companies, finance companies, credit unions and other nonbank financial service providers. Some of these competitors are much larger by total assets and capitalization, have greater access to capital markets and have achieved better results than we have in the current economic downturn.
In order to compete with the other financial services providers in the state of Hawaii, we principally rely upon local promotional activities, personal relationships between customers and our officers, directors and employees, and specialized services tailored to meet the needs of our customers and the communities we serve. We remain competitive by offering flexibility and superior service levels, coupled with competitive interest rates and pricing.
For further discussion of factors affecting our operations see, “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”
Business Concentrations
No individual or single group of related accounts is considered material in relation to the assets or deposits of our bank, or in relation to the overall business of the Company. However, approximately 82% of our loan portfolio held for investment at December 31, 2012 consisted of real estate-related loans, including construction loans, residential mortgage loans and commercial mortgage loans. See “Part II, Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Financial Condition—Loan Portfolio.”
Our business activities are focused primarily in Hawaii. Consequently, our results of operations and financial condition are impacted by the general economic trends in Hawaii, particularly in the commercial and residential real estate markets. During periods of economic strength, the real estate market and the real estate industry typically perform well; during periods of economic weakness, they typically are adversely affected.
Our Subsidiaries
Central Pacific Bank is the wholly-owned principal subsidiary of Central Pacific Financial Corp. Other wholly-owned subsidiaries include: CPB Capital Trust I; CPB Capital Trust II; CPB Statutory Trust III; CPB Capital Trust IV; CPB Statutory Trust V; CPB Real Estate, Inc.; and Citibank Properties, Inc.
Central Pacific Bank also owns 50% of Pacific Access Mortgage, LLC, Gentry HomeLoans, LLC, Haseko HomeLoans, LLC and Island Pacific HomeLoans, LLC.
Our former subsidiary Central Pacific HomeLoans, Inc. was merged into the bank in February 2012.
Supervision and Regulation
Set forth below is a description of the material elements of the laws and regulations and other regulatory matters applicable to us and our bank. The following discussion of statutes and regulations is a summary and does not purport to be complete. This discussion is qualified in its entirety by reference to the statutes and regulations referred to in this discussion. Regulators, Congress, state legislatures and international consultative bodies continue to enact rules, laws and policies to regulate the financial services industry and public companies and to protect consumers and investors. The nature of these laws and regulations and the effect of such policies on our business cannot be predicted and, in some cases, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
Regulatory Agencies
Central Pacific Financial Corp. is a legal entity separate and distinct from its subsidiaries. As a bank holding company, Central Pacific Financial Corp. is regulated under the BHC Act and is subject to inspection, examination and supervision by the FRB. It is also subject to Hawaii’s Code of Financial Institutions and is subject to inspection, examination and supervision by the DFI.
The Company is also subject to the disclosure and regulatory requirements of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as administered by the SEC. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the trading symbol “CPF,” and we are subject to the rules of the NYSE for companies listed there.
Central Pacific Bank, as a Hawaii-chartered bank, is subject to primary supervision, periodic examination and regulation by the DFI and FDIC. Central Pacific Financial Corp., as a bank holding company, is also subject to certain regulations promulgated by the FRB. In its periodic examinations, each of these regulatory bodies assesses our financial condition, capital resources, asset quality, earnings prospects, management, liquidity and other aspects of our operations. These bodies also determine whether our management is violating or has violated any law or regulation. The DFI and FRB, and separately the FDIC as insurer of the bank’s deposits, have various remedies available to them. Such remedies include the power to enjoin “unsafe or unsound” practices, to require affirmative action to correct any conditions resulting from any violation or practice, to issue an administrative order that can be judicially enforced, to direct an increase in capital or establish specific minimum capital ratios, to restrict the bank’s growth, to assess civil monetary penalties, to remove officers and directors, to institute a receivership, and ultimately to terminate the bank’s deposit insurance, which for a Hawaii-chartered bank would result in a revocation of its charter.
Regulatory Matters
As previously reported, in May 2011, the regulatory Consent Order (the “Consent Order”) that the bank entered into with the FDIC and the DFI on December 9, 2009 was lifted. In place of the Consent Order, the Board of Directors of the bank entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “Bank MOU”) with the FDIC and DFI effective May 5, 2011. Since this time, we have worked closely with both the FDIC and DFI to satisfactorily resolve all outstanding issues contained in the Bank MOU, including but not limited to, maintaining an adequate allowance for loan and lease losses, improving our asset quality, reducing our classified assets, and ensuring that our capital levels exceeded the levels required by the Bank MOU. On October 26, 2012, the Bank MOU was lifted.
On July 2, 2010, we entered into the Written Agreement with the FRBSF and DFI. The Written Agreement provided that unless we receive the consent of the FRBSF and DFI, we cannot: (i) pay dividends; (ii) receive dividends or payments representing a reduction in capital from the bank; (iii) directly or through our non-bank subsidiaries make any payments on subordinated debentures or trust preferred securities; (iv) directly or through any non-bank subsidiaries incur, increase or guarantee any debt; or (v) purchase or redeem any shares of our stock. On February 12, 2013, the Written Agreement was terminated. Accordingly, we are no longer subject to any of its requirements.
On October 9, 2012, the bank entered into a separate Memorandum of Understanding (the “Compliance MOU”) with the FDIC to improve the bank’s compliance management system (“CMS”). Under the Compliance MOU, we are required to, among other things, (i) improve the Board of Directors’ oversight of the bank’s CMS; (ii) ensure the establishment and implementation of the bank’s CMS is commensurate with the complexity of the bank’s operations; (iii) perform a full review of all compliance policy and procedures, then revise and adopt policy and procedures to ensure compliance with all consumer protection regulations; (iv) enhance the bank’s training program relating to consumer protection and fair lending regulations; (v) develop and implement an effective internal monitoring program to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; (vi) strengthen the compliance audit function to ensure that the compliance audits are appropriately and comprehensively scoped; (vii) develop and implement internal controls for the bank’s third-party payment processing activity; (viii) strengthen the Board of Directors and senior management’s oversight of third-party relationships and (ix) enhance the bank’s overdraft payment program The bank believes it has already taken substantial steps to comply with the Compliance MOU. In addition to the steps taken to comply with the Compliance MOU, the bank received an “Outstanding” rating in a recently completed Community Reinvestment performance evaluation that measures how financial institutions support their communities in the areas of lending, investment and service.
We cannot provide any assurance on whether or when the Company and the bank will be in full compliance with the Compliance MOU or whether or when the Compliance MOU will be terminated. Even if terminated, we may still be subject to other agreements with regulators that restrict our activities and may also continue to impose capital ratios or other requirements on our business. The requirements and restrictions of the Compliance MOU are judicially enforceable and the Company or the bank's failure to comply with such requirements and restrictions may subject the Company and the bank to additional regulatory restrictions including: the imposition of additional regulatory requirements or orders; limitations on our activities; the imposition of civil monetary penalties; and further directives which affect our business, including, in the most severe circumstances, termination of the bank’s deposit insurance or appointment of a conservator or receiver for the bank.
Bank Holding Company Activities
Under the BHC Act, the Company, as a Bank Holding Company, is subject to the Federal Reserve's regulation and its authority to, among other things:
| · | Require periodic reports and such additional information as the Federal Reserve may require in its discretion; |
| · | Require the maintenance of certain levels of capital; |
| · | Restrict the ability of bank holding companies to service debt or to receive dividends or other distributions from their subsidiary banks; |
| · | Require prior approval for senior executive officer and director changes under certain circumstances; |
| · | Require that bank holding companies serve as a source of financial and managerial strength to subsidiary banks and commit resources as necessary to support each subsidiary bank. A bank holding company's failure to meet its obligations to serve as a source of strength to its subsidiary banks will generally be considered by the Federal Reserve to be an unsafe and unsound banking practice or a violation of Federal Reserve regulations or both under current law, and will be a statutory violation under the Dodd-Frank Act, as described below; |
| · | Terminate an activity or terminate control of or liquidate or divest certain subsidiaries, affiliates or investments if the Federal Reserve believes the activity or the control of the subsidiary or affiliate constitutes a serious risk to the financial safety, soundness or stability of any bank subsidiary; |
| · | Regulate provisions of certain bank holding company debt, including the authority to impose interest ceilings and reserve requirements on such debt and require prior approval to purchase or redeem our securities in certain situations; and |
| · | Approve acquisitions and mergers with banks and consider certain competitive, management, financial, financial stability and other factors in granting these approvals. Similar California and other state banking agency approvals may also be required. |
Our ability to acquire direct or indirect ownership of other companies and to engage directly or indirectly in certain activities is subject to limitation and regulation by the FRB and DFI.
Because we are a holding company, our rights and the rights of our creditors and security holders to participate in the assets of any of our subsidiaries upon the subsidiary's liquidation or reorganization will be subject to the prior claims of the subsidiary's creditors, except to the extent we may ourselves be a creditor with recognized claims against the subsidiary. In addition, there are various statutory and regulatory limitations on the extent to which the bank can finance or otherwise transfer funds to us or to our non-bank subsidiaries, including certain investment funds to which the bank serves as an investment adviser, whether in the form of loans or other extensions of credit, including a purchase of assets subject to an agreement to repurchase, securities investments, the borrowing or lending of securities to the extent that the transaction causes the bank or a subsidiary to have credit exposure to the affiliate, or certain other specified types of transactions, as discussed in further detail below. Furthermore, loans and other extensions of credit by the bank to us or any of our non-bank subsidiaries are required to be secured by specified amounts of collateral and are required to be on terms and conditions consistent with safe and sound banking practices.
Affiliate Transactions
Transactions between our subsidiary bank, on the one hand, and CPF and its other subsidiaries, on the other hand, are regulated by the FRB. These regulations limit the types and amounts of transactions (including loans due and extensions of credit from our subsidiary bank) that may take place and generally require those transactions to be on an arm’s length basis. These regulations generally do not apply to transactions between a U.S. bank subsidiary and its subsidiaries. In general, these regulations require that any extensions of credit must be secured by designated amounts of specified collateral and must be limited, as to any one of CPF or its non-bank subsidiaries, to 10% of our subsidiary bank’s capital stock and surplus, and, as to the holding company and all such non-bank subsidiaries in the aggregate, to 20% of our subsidiary bank’s capital stock and surplus. These restrictions, other than the 10% of capital limit on covered transactions with any one affiliate, are also applied to transactions between banks and their financial subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act significantly expands the coverage and scope of the limitations on affiliate transactions within a banking organization. For example, effective July 2011, the Dodd-Frank Act required that the 10% of capital limit on covered transactions begin to apply to financial subsidiaries. It also required that, effective July 2011, derivative transactions under which a bank (or a subsidiary) has credit exposure to an affiliate be treated as covered transactions, with the term “credit exposure” to be defined by the FRB under its existing rulemaking authority. In addition, our ability to make loans to our directors and officers is limited to applicable regulation.
Source of Strength Doctrine
FRB policy historically has required bank holding companies to act as a source of strength to their bank subsidiaries and to commit capital and financial resources to support those subsidiaries. The Dodd-Frank Act codifies this policy as a statutory requirement. Such support may be required by the FRB at times when we might otherwise determine not to provide it. Any capital loan by a bank holding company to any of its subsidiary banks is subordinate in right of payment to deposits and to certain other indebtedness of such subsidiary banks. The BHC Act provides that in the event of a bank holding company’s bankruptcy, any commitment by the bank holding company to a federal bank regulatory agency to maintain the capital of a subsidiary bank will be assumed by the bankruptcy trustee and entitled to priority of payment.
Capital Requirements
The federal banking agencies adopted guidelines governing risk-based capital and allowable leverage capital levels for bank holding companies and banks that are expected to provide a measure of capital that reflects the degree of risk associated with a banking organization's operations for both transactions reported on the balance sheet as assets, such as loans, and those recorded as off-balance sheet items, such as commitments, letters of credit and recourse arrangements.
Under current capital guidelines, banking organizations are required to maintain certain minimum risk-based capital ratios, which are calculated by dividing a banking organization's qualifying capital by its risk-weighted assets (including both on- and off-balance sheet assets). Risk-weighted assets are calculated by assigning assets and off-balance sheet items to broad risk categories. Qualifying capital is classified depending on the type of capital. For the Company:
| · | “Tier 1 capital” consists of common equity, retained earnings, qualifying non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, a limited amount of qualifying cumulative perpetual preferred stock issued prior to May 19, 2010 and noncontrolling interests in the equity accounts of consolidated subsidiaries (including trust-preferred securities), less goodwill and certain other intangible assets. Qualifying Tier 1 capital may consist of trust-preferred securities issued prior to May 19, 2010, subject to certain criteria and quantitative limits for inclusion of restricted core capital elements in Tier 1 capital. |
| · | “Tier 2 capital” includes, among other things, hybrid capital instruments, perpetual debt, mandatory convertible debt securities, qualifying term subordinated debt, preferred stock that does not qualify as Tier 1 capital, and a limited amount of allowance for loan and lease losses. |
As a bank holding company, the Company is subject to three capital ratios: a total risk-based capital ratio, a Tier 1 risk-based capital ratio and a Tier 1 leverage ratio. To be classified as “adequately capitalized”, the minimum required ratios for bank holding companies and banks are eight percent, four percent and four percent, respectively. To be “well-capitalized,” the Company must at all times have a total risk-based capital, Tier 1 risk-based capital and Tier 1 leverage ratio of at least ten percent, six percent and five percent, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, both the Company and the bank were considered “well-capitalized” for regulatory purposes.
The federal banking agencies may change existing capital guidelines or adopt new capital guidelines in the future pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, the implementation of Basel III (described below) or other regulatory or supervisory changes. For instance, the Dodd-Frank Act further requires the federal banking agencies to adopt capital requirements which address the risks that the activities of an institution poses to the institution and the public and private stakeholders, including risks arising from certain enumerated activities. Notwithstanding these capital ratio requirements, pursuant to federal regulatory guidance, banking organizations are expected to operate with capital positions well above the minimum or “well-capitalized” ratios, with the amount of capital held commensurate with its risk exposure.
The capital ratios for the Company and the bank as of December 31, 2012 are provided in our Financial Statements. See “Note 27 – Parent Company and Regulatory Restrictions.”
Prompt Corrective Action and Other General Enforcement Authority
State and federal banking agencies possess broad powers to take corrective and other supervisory action against an insured bank and its holding company. Federal laws require each federal banking agency to take prompt corrective action to resolve the problems of insured banks.
Each federal banking agency issued regulations defining five categories in which an insured depository institution will be placed, based on the level of its capital ratios: well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized, and critically undercapitalized. At each successive lower capital category, an insured bank is subject to more restrictions, including restrictions on the bank's activities, operational practices or the ability to pay dividends. Based upon its capital levels, a bank that is classified as well-capitalized, adequately capitalized, or undercapitalized may be treated as though it were in the next lower capital category if the appropriate federal banking agency, after notice and opportunity for hearing, determines that an unsafe or unsound condition, or an unsafe or unsound practice, warrants such treatment.
In addition to measures taken under the prompt corrective action provisions, bank holding companies and insured banks may be subject to potential enforcement actions by the federal regulators for unsafe or unsound practices in conducting their business, or for violation of any law, rule, regulation, condition imposed in writing by the agency or term of a written agreement with the agency. In more serious cases, enforcement actions may include the appointment of a conservator or receiver for the bank; the issuance of a cease and desist order that can be judicially enforced; the termination of the bank's deposit insurance; the imposition of civil monetary penalties; the issuance of directives to increase capital; the issuance of formal and informal agreements; the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against officers, directors, and other institution-affiliated parties; and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders based upon a judicial determination that the agency would be harmed if such equitable relief was not granted.
The FDIC may terminate a depository institution's deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution's financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that may prejudice the interest of the bank's depositors. The termination of deposit insurance for a bank would also result in the revocation of the bank's charter by the DFI.
Basel, Basel II and Basel III Accords
The current risk-based capital guidelines that apply to the Company and the bank are based upon the 1988 capital accord of the International Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, a committee of central banks and bank supervisors, as implemented by the Federal Reserve. In 2008, the Federal Reserve began to phase-in capital standards based on a second capital accord, referred to as Basel II, for large or “core” international banks (total assets of $250 billion or more or consolidated foreign exposures of $10 billion or more). Basel II emphasizes internal assessment of credit, market and operational risk, as well as supervisory assessment and market discipline in determining minimum capital requirements.
On September 12, 2010, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee, announced agreement on the calibration and phase-in arrangements for a strengthened set of capital requirements, known as the Basel Capital Adequacy Accords or Basel III. Basel III increases the minimum Tier 1 common equity ratio to 4.5%, net of regulatory deductions, and introduces a capital conservation buffer of an additional 2.5% of common equity to risk-weighted assets, raising the target minimum common equity ratio to 7.0%. Basel III increases (a) the minimum Tier 1 capital ratio to 8.5% inclusive of the capital conservation buffer, (b) increases the minimum total capital ratio to 10.5% inclusive of the capital buffer and (c) introduces a countercyclical capital buffer of up to 2.5% of common equity or other fully loss absorbing capital for periods of excess credit growth. Basel III also introduces a non-risk adjusted Tier 1 leverage ratio of 3.0%, based on a measure of total exposure rather than total assets, and new liquidity standards. The Basel III capital and liquidity standards are expected to be phased in over a multi-year period. The final package of Basel III reforms was published at the end of 2010, and is subject to individual adoption by member nations, including the United States.
In June 2012, the FRB issued proposed rules intended to help ensure banks maintain strong capital positions, enabling them to continue lending to creditworthy households and businesses even after unforeseen losses and during severe economic downturns. Taken together, the proposals would implement in the United States the Basel III regulatory capital reforms from the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and changes required by the Dodd-Frank Act.
In particular, the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) entitled Regulatory Capital Rules: Regulatory Capital, Implementation of Basel III, Minimum Regulatory Capital Ratios, Capital Adequacy, and Transition Provisions, would apply to all depository institutions, bank holding companies with total consolidated assets of $500 million or more, and savings and loan holding companies. Consistent with the international Basel framework, this NPR would:
| · | Increase the quantity and quality of capital required by proposing a new minimum common equity tier 1 ratio of 4.5 percent of risk-weighted assets and a common equity tier 1 capital conservation buffer of 2.5 percent of risk-weighted assets, and raise the minimum tier 1 capital ratio from 4 percent to 6 percent of risk-weighted assets; |
| · | Revise the definition of capital to improve the ability of regulatory capital instruments to absorb losses, including the gradual phase-out of trust preferred securities as a component of Tier 1 Capital; |
| · | Establish limitations on capital distributions and certain discretionary bonus payments if additional specified amounts, or "buffers," of common equity tier 1 capital are not met; and |
| · | Introduce a supplementary leverage ratio for internationally active banking organizations. |
The Basel III proposal would also revise the Board's prompt corrective action framework by incorporating the new regulatory capital minimums and updating the definition of tangible common equity. Prompt corrective action is an enforcement framework used by supervisors to constrain the activities of banking organizations based on the level of regulatory capital.
Additionally, the NPR entitled Regulatory Capital Rules: Standardized Approach for Risk-weighted Assets; Market Discipline and Disclosure Requirements, also would apply to all banking organizations. This NPR would revise and harmonize the Board's rules for calculating risk-weighted assets to enhance risk sensitivity and address weaknesses that have been identified over the past several years.
To promote short-term resilience of a bank's liquidity risk profile, the Basel Committee developed the Liquidity Coverage Ratio (“LCR”). This standard aims to ensure that a bank has an adequate stock of unencumbered high quality liquid assets consisting of cash or assets that can be converted into cash at little or no loss of value in private markets to meet its liquidity needs for a 30 calendar day liquidity stress scenario. The LCR is the ratio of the “stock of high-quality liquid assets” to “total net cash outflows over the next 30 calendar days.” In January 2013, amendments were adopted to the liquidity coverage ratio to begin as planned on January 1, 2015, but to impose a minimum LCR requirement at 60%, rising in equal annual steps of 10 percentage points to reach 100% on January 1, 2019.
We believe the Federal Reserve is likely to implement changes to the capital adequacy and liquidity standards applicable to the Company and the bank in light of Basel III, the Dodd-Frank Act and the overall regulatory environment which would increase the capital requirements of financial institutions generally, including the Company and the bank.
Insolvency of an Insured Depository Institution
If the FDIC were appointed the conservator or receiver of an insured depository institution such as Central Pacific Bank, upon its insolvency or in certain other events, the FDIC has the power: (i) to transfer any of the depository institution’s assets and liabilities to a new obligor without the approval of the depository institution’s creditors; (ii) to enforce the terms of the depository institution’s contracts pursuant to their terms; or (iii) to repudiate or disaffirm any contract or lease to which the depository institution is a party, the performance of which is determined by the FDIC to be burdensome and the disaffirmance or repudiation of which is determined by the FDIC to promote the orderly administration of the depository institution.
In addition, under federal law, the claims of holders of deposit liabilities and certain claims for administrative expenses against an insured depository institution would be afforded a priority over other general unsecured claims against such an institution, including claims of debt holders of the institution, in the “liquidation or other resolution” of such an institution by any receiver. As a result, whether or not the FDIC ever sought to repudiate any debt obligations of Central Pacific Bank, the debt holders would be treated differently from, and could receive, if anything, substantially less than, the depositors of the depository institution.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
The events of the past several years led to numerous new laws and regulatory pronouncements in the United States and internationally for financial institutions. The Dodd-Frank Act, enacted in 2010, is one of the most far reaching legislative actions affecting the financial services industry in decades and significantly restructures the financial regulatory regime in the United States.
The Dodd-Frank Act broadly affects the financial services industry by creating new resolution authorities, requiring ongoing stress testing of capital, mandating higher capital and liquidity requirements, increasing regulation of executive and incentive-based compensation and requiring numerous other provisions aimed at strengthening the sound operation of the financial services sector depending, in part, on the size of the financial institution. Among other things, the Dodd-Frank Act provides for:
| · | capital standards applicable to bank holding companies may be no less stringent than those applied to insured depository institutions; |
| · | annual stress tests and early remediation or so-called living wills are required for larger banks with more than $50 billon assets as well risk committees of its board of directors that include a risk expert and such requirements may have the effect of establishing new best practices standards for smaller banks; |
| · | the assessment base for federal deposit insurance was changed to consolidated assets less tangible capital instead of the amount of insured deposits, which generally increased the insurance fees of larger banks, but had relatively less impact on smaller banks; |
| · | repeal of the federal prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits, including business checking accounts, and made permanent the $250,000 limit for federal deposit insurance; |
| · | the establishment of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) with responsibility for promulgating and enforcing regulations designed to protect consumers’ financial interests and prohibit unfair, deceptive and abusive acts and practices by financial institutions; |
| · | the CFPB to directly examine those financial institutions with $10 billion or more in assets for compliance with the regulations promulgated by the CFPB; |
| · | limits, or places significant burdens and compliance and other costs, on activities traditionally conducted by banking organizations, such as originating and securitizing mortgage loans and other financial assets, arranging and participating in swap and derivative transactions, proprietary trading and investing in private equity and other funds; and |
| · | the establishment of new compensation restrictions and standards regarding the time, manner and form of compensation given to key executives and other personnel receiving incentive compensation, including documentation and governance, proxy access by stockholders, deferral and claw-back requirements. |
As required by the Dodd-Frank Act, federal regulators published for comment proposed regulations to (i) increase capital requirements on banks and bank holding companies, and (ii) implement the so-called “Volcker Rule” of the Dodd-Frank Act, which would significantly restrict certain activities by covered bank holding companies, including restrictions on proprietary trading and private equity investing. Final rules are expected in 2013.
Yet, many of the regulations to implement the Dodd-Frank Act have not yet been published for comment or adopted in final form and/or will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on the Company and the bank, our customers or the financial industry more generally. Individually and collectively, proposed regulations resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act may materially and adversely affect both the Company’s and bank’s businesses, financial conditions and results of operations. Provisions in the legislation requiring revisions to the capital requirements of the Company and the bank could require the Company and the bank to seek additional sources of capital in the future.
Many aspects of Dodd-Frank are subject to rulemaking and will take effect over several years, making it difficult to anticipate the overall financial impact on us and the financial services industry more generally. Nonetheless, we anticipate increased costs associated with these new regulations.
Deposit Insurance
We are generally unable to control the amount of premiums that we are required to pay for FDIC insurance. If there are additional bank or financial institution failures or if the FDIC otherwise determines, our premiums could increase, which may have a material and adverse effect on our earnings and could have a material adverse effect on the value of, or market for, our common stock.
All FDIC-insured institutions are also required to pay assessments to the FDIC to fund interest payments on bonds issued by the Financing Corporation (“FICO”), an agency of the federal government established to recapitalize the predecessor to the Deposit Insurance Fund. These assessments will continue until the FICO bonds mature in 2017. The FDIC may terminate a depository institution’s deposit insurance upon a finding that the institution’s financial condition is unsafe or unsound or that the institution has engaged in unsafe or unsound practices that may prejudice the interest of the bank’s depositors. The termination of deposit insurance for a bank would also result in the revocation of the bank’s charter by the DFI.
Depositor Preference
The FDIA provides that, in the event of the “liquidation or other resolution” of an insured depository institution, the claims of depositors of the institution, including the claims of the FDIC as subrogee of insured depositors, and certain claims for administrative expenses of the FDIC as a receiver, will have priority over other general unsecured claims against the institution. If an insured depository institution fails, insured and uninsured depositors, along with the FDIC, will have priority in payment ahead of unsecured, non-deposit creditors, including the parent bank holding company, with respect to any extensions of credit they have made to such insured depository institution.
Operations and Consumer Compliance Laws
The bank must comply with numerous federal anti-money laundering and consumer protection statutes and implementing regulations, including the USA Patriot Act of 2001, the Bank Secrecy Act, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (effective 2013), the CRA, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, as amended by the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Community Reinvestment Act, the Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Housing Act, the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, the National Flood Insurance Act and various federal and state privacy protection laws. The bank and the Company are also subject to federal and state laws prohibiting unfair or fraudulent business practices, untrue or misleading advertising and unfair competition.
These laws and regulations also mandate certain disclosure and reporting requirements and regulate the manner in which financial institutions must deal with customers when taking deposits, making loans, collecting loans, and providing other services. Failure to comply with these laws and regulations can subject the bank to lawsuits and penalties, including but not limited to enforcement actions, injunctions, fines or criminal penalties, punitive damages to consumers, and the loss of certain contractual rights.
The Dodd-Frank Act provided for the creation of the Bureau as an independent entity within the Federal Reserve. The Bureau is a new regulatory agency for United States banks. The Bureau has broad rulemaking, supervisory, and enforcement authority over consumer financial products and services, including deposit products, residential mortgages, home-equity loans and credit cards. The Bureau’s functions include investigating consumer complaints, conducting market research, rulemaking, supervising and examining banks consumer transactions, and enforcing rules related to consumer financial products and services. Pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act, banks (such as our bank) with less than $10 billion in assets will continue to be examined for compliance with the consumer laws and the regulations of the Bureau by their primary federal banking agency.
The Bureau has adopted revisions to Regulation Z, which implements the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), pursuant to Dodd-Frank. The revisions take effect on January 10, 2014 and will apply to all consumer mortgages (except home equity lines of credit, timeshare plans, reverse mortgages, or temporary loans). The revisions mandate specific underwriting criteria for home loans in order for creditors to make a reasonable, good faith determination of a consumer's ability to repay and establish certain protections from liability under this requirement for "qualified mortgages" meeting certain standards. In particular, when the revisions take effect, it will prevent banks from making "no doc" and "low doc" home loans, as the rules require that banks determine a consumer's ability to pay based in part on verified and documented information. Because we do not originate “no doc” or “low doc” loans, we do not believe this regulation will have a significant impact on our operations.
Legislative Initiatives
From time to time, various legislative and regulatory initiatives are introduced in Congress and state legislatures, as well as by regulatory agencies. Such initiatives may include proposals to expand or contract the powers of bank holding companies and depository institutions or proposals to substantially change the financial institution regulatory system. Such legislation could change banking statutes and our operating environment in substantial and unpredictable ways. If enacted, such legislation could increase or decrease the cost of doing business, limit or expand permissible activities or affect the competitive balance among banks, savings associations, credit unions and other financial institutions. We cannot predict whether any such legislation will be enacted, and if enacted, the effect that it or any implementing regulations would have on our financial condition or results of operations. A change in statutes, regulations or regulatory policies applicable to us or any of our subsidiaries could have a material adverse effect on our business.
Employees
At December 31, 2012, we employed 948 persons, 871 on a full-time basis and 77 on a part-time basis. We are not a party to any collective bargaining agreement.
Protection of Net Operating Losses
We have generated considerable tax benefits, including net operating loss carry-forwards and federal and state tax credits. Our use of the tax benefits in the future would be significantly limited if we experience an “ownership change” for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, an “ownership change” will occur if there is a cumulative increase in the Company’s ownership by “5-percent shareholders” (as defined under U.S. income tax laws) that exceeds 50 percentage points over a rolling three-year period.
On November 23, 2010, our board declared a dividend of preferred share purchase rights (“Rights”) in respect of our common stock which were issued pursuant to a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, dated as of November 23, 2010 (the “Tax Benefits Preservation Plan”), between the Company and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as rights agent. Each Right represents the right to purchase, upon the terms and subject to the conditions in the Plan, 1/10,000th of a share of our Junior Participating Preferred Stock, Series C, no par value, for $6.00, subject to adjustment. The Tax Benefits Preservation Plan is designed to reduce the likelihood that the Company will experience an ownership change by discouraging any person from becoming a beneficial owner of 4.99% or more of our common stock (a “Threshold Holder”). There is no guarantee, however, that the Tax Benefits Preservation Plan will prevent the Company from experiencing an ownership change. Adoption of the Tax Benefits Preservation Plan was required by our agreements with The Carlyle Group (“Carlyle”) and Anchorage Capital Group, L.L.C. (“Anchorage”).
To further protect our tax benefits, on January 26, 2011, our board approved a proposed amendment to our restated articles of incorporation to restrict transfers of our stock if the effect of an attempted transfer would cause the transferee to become a Threshold Holder or to cause the beneficial ownership of a Threshold Holder to increase (the “Protective Charter Amendment”). At our annual meeting of shareholders on April 27, 2011, we proposed the amendment which shareholders voted on and approved. The Protective Charter Amendment also does not guarantee that we will not experience an ownership change.
Available Information
Our internet website can be found at www.centralpacificbank.com. Our annual reports 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 on our internet website as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC. Copies of the Company’s filings with the SEC may also be obtained directly from the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. These documents may also be obtained in print upon request by our shareholders to our Investor Relations Department.
Also posted on our website and available in print upon request of any shareholder to our Investor Relations Department, are the charters for our Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Corporate Governance Committee, as well as our Corporate Governance Guidelines and Code of Business Conduct and Ethics. Within the time period required by the SEC and NYSE, we will post on our website any amendment to the Code of Business Conduct and Ethics and any waiver applicable to our senior financial officers, as defined by the SEC, and our executive officers or directors. In addition, our website includes information concerning purchases and sales of our equity securities by our executive officers and directors, as well as disclosure relating to certain non-GAAP financial measures (as defined in the SEC’s Regulation G) that we may make public orally, telephonically, by webcast, by broadcast or by similar means from time to time.
Our business faces significant risks, including credit, market/liquidity, operational, legal/regulatory and strategic/reputation risks. The factors described below may not be the only risks we face and are not intended to serve as a comprehensive listing or be applicable only to the category of risk under which they are disclosed. The risks described below are generally applicable to more than one of the following categories of risks. Additional risks that we do not yet know of or that we currently think are immaterial may also impair our business operations. If any of the events or circumstances described in the following factors actually occurs, our business, financial condition and/or results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.
Risk Factors Related to our Business
Despite signs of stabilization, uncertainty about the global and U.S. economies could have an adverse effect on us.
Although general economic trends and market conditions continue to show signs of stabilization, concerns about the global and U.S. economies still remain, including concerns over the European sovereign debt crisis. Growing U.S. government indebtedness, a large budget deficit, and concerns over the federal debt ceiling continue to add to the uncertainty surrounding a sustained economic recovery.
Downgrades in debt instruments could raise borrowing costs and adversely impact the mortgage and housing markets, any of which could have one or more of the following adverse impacts on us: (i) loan delinquencies may increase; (ii) problem assets and foreclosures may increase leading to higher loan charge-offs; (iii) demand for our products and services may decline; (iv) low cost or non-interest bearing deposits may decrease; and (v) collateral for loans made by us, especially involving real estate, may decline in value, in turn reducing customers’ borrowing power and reducing the value of assets and collateral associated with our existing loans.
Difficult economic and market conditions have adversely affected our industry and renewed economic slowdown in Hawaii or a worsening of current market conditions in general would result in additional adverse effects on us.
The U.S. economy entered into one of the longest economic recessions to have occurred since the Great Depression of the 1930’s in December 2007. Although general economic trends and market conditions have since stabilized to some degree, a renewed economic slowdown in Hawaii or a worsening of current market conditions in general would likely result in additional adverse effects on us, including: (i) loan delinquencies may increase; (ii) problem assets and foreclosures may increase leading to more loan charge-offs; (iii) demand for our products and services may decline; (iv) low cost or non-interest bearing deposits may decrease; and (v) collateral for loans made by us, especially involving real estate, may continue to decline in value, in turn reducing customers’ borrowing power and reducing the value of assets and collateral associated with our existing loans.
Furthermore, unlike larger national or other regional banks that are more geographically diversified, our business and operations are closely tied to the Hawaii market. The Hawaii economy relies on tourism, real estate, government and other service-based industries. Declines in tourism, increases in energy costs, the availability of affordable air transportation, adverse weather and natural disasters and local budget issues impact consumer and corporate spending. As a result, such events may contribute to the deterioration in Hawaii’s general economic condition, which could adversely impact us and our borrowers.
The high concentration of commercial real estate and construction loans in our portfolio, combined with the deterioration in these sectors caused by the economic downturn, had and may continue to have a significantly more adverse impact on our operating results than many other banks across the nation. Although we have taken a number of steps to reduce our credit risk exposure over the past several quarters, we still had $90.0 million in nonperforming assets at December 31, 2012. If our borrowers continue to experience financial difficulty, or if property values securing our real estate loans decline further, we will continue to incur elevated credit costs due to the composition of our loan portfolio even if market conditions stabilize or improve.
Our Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, California commercial real estate and construction loan operations have a considerable effect on our results of operations.
The performance of our Hawaii and California commercial real estate and construction loans depends on a number of factors, including the continued stabilization and eventual improvement of the real estate markets in which we operate. As we have seen in the Hawaii and California construction and commercial real estate markets since the latter part of 2007, the strength of the real estate market and the results of our operations could continue to be negatively affected by the economic downturn.
Declines in the market for commercial property from 2007 through 2010 have caused some of our commercial borrowers to suffer losses on their projects. Defaults of these loans or further deterioration in the credit worthiness of any of these borrowers would further negatively affect our financial condition, results of operations and prospects. Declines in housing prices and the supply of existing houses for sale could cause residential developers who are our borrowers to suffer losses on their projects and encounter difficulty in repaying their loans. Although during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, we saw improvement in our credit risk profile and significant reductions in our nonperforming assets, which resulted in a credit to our provision for loan and lease losses of $18.9 million and $40.7 million, respectively. During the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, our provision for loan and lease losses amounted to $159.5 million, $348.8 million and $171.7 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2012, our percentage of nonperforming assets to total loans and leases, loans held for sale and other real estate was 4.00%, compared to 8.99% as of December 31, 2011 and 13.18% as of December 31, 2010. We cannot assure you that we will have an adequate allowance for loan and lease losses to cover future losses. If we suffer greater losses than we are projecting, our recovery plan and the ability to improve our position will be materially adversely affected.
Our net income has been favorably impacted by credits to our provision for loan and lease losses, which may not continue.
Over the last eight quarters, we have recorded a credit to the provision for loan and lease losses which has favorably impacted our net income. Although other factors of our overall risk profile have improved in recent quarters and general economic trends and market conditions have shown signs of stabilization to some degree, concerns over the global and U.S. economies still remain. Accordingly, it is possible that the Hawaii or California real estate markets could deteriorate as it did from the latter part of 2007 through 2010. If this occurs, it may result in an increase in loan delinquencies, loan charge-offs, and our allowance for loan and lease losses. Even if economic conditions improve or stay the same, it is possible that we may experience material credit losses and in turn, increases to our allowance for loan and lease losses, due to the elevated risk still inherent in our existing loan portfolio resulting from our high concentration of commercial real estate and construction loans. If that were to occur, we may no longer record a credit to the provision for loan and lease losses which would have an adverse impact on our net income.
A large percentage of our loans are collateralized by real estate and continued deterioration in the real estate market may result in additional losses and adversely affect our financial results.
Our results of operations have been, and in future periods, will continue to be significantly impacted by the economy in Hawaii, and to a lesser extent, other markets we are exposed to including California. Approximately 82% of our loan portfolio as of December 31, 2012 was comprised of loans primarily collateralized by real estate, with the significant majority of these loans concentrated in Hawaii.
Deterioration of the economic environment in Hawaii, California or other markets we are exposed to, including a continued decline or worsening declines in the real estate market and single-family home resales or a material external shock, may significantly impair the value of our collateral and our ability to sell the collateral upon foreclosure. In the event of a default with respect to any of these loans, amounts received upon sale of the collateral may be insufficient to recover outstanding principal and interest on the loan. As we have seen in the past, material declines in the value of the real estate assets securing many of our commercial real estate loans may lead to significant credit losses in this portfolio. As a result of our particularly high concentration of commercial real estate and construction loans, the risk within our portfolio is higher than many financial institutions and, as a result, our portfolio had been and remains particularly susceptible to significant credit losses during economic downturns and adverse changes in the real estate market.
Our allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to cover actual loan losses, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Additional loan losses may occur in the future and may occur at a rate greater than we have experienced to date.
As a lender, we are exposed to the risk that our loan customers may not repay their loans according to their terms and that the collateral or guarantees securing these loans may be insufficient to assure repayment. Although during the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, we recorded a credit to our provision for loan and lease losses amounting to $18.9 million and $40.7 million, respectively, for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, our provision for loan and lease losses amounted to $159.5 million, $348.8 million and $171.7 million, respectively. Our current allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to cover future loan losses. We may experience significant loan losses that could have a material adverse effect on our operating results. Management makes various assumptions and judgments about the collectibility of our loan portfolio, which are regularly reevaluated and are based in part on:
| · | current economic conditions and their estimated effects on specific borrowers; |
| · | an evaluation of the existing relationships among loans, potential loan losses and the present level of the allowance for loan and lease losses; |
| · | results of examinations of our loan portfolios by regulatory agencies; and |
| · | management’s internal review of the loan portfolio. |
In determining the size of the allowance for loan and lease losses, we rely on an analysis of our loan portfolio, our experience and our evaluation of general economic conditions, as well as the requirements of any supervisory action taken by the bank’s regulators and other regulatory input. If our assumptions prove to be incorrect, our current allowance for loan and lease losses may not be sufficient to cover the losses. Because of the uncertainty in the economy, volatility in the credit and real estate markets, including specifically, the deterioration in the Hawaii and California real estate markets and our high concentration of commercial real estate and construction loans, we made significant adjustments to our allowance for loan and lease losses over the past several years and may need to make additional adjustments in the future. In addition, third parties, including our federal and state regulators, periodically evaluate the adequacy of our allowance for loan and lease losses and may communicate with us concerning the methodology or judgments that we have raised in determining the allowance for loan and lease losses. As a result of this input, we may be required to assign different grades to specific credits, increase our provision for loan and lease losses, and/or recognize further loan charge offs.
Our ability to use net operating loss carry forwards to reduce future tax payments may be limited or restricted.
We have generated significant net operating losses (“NOLs”) as a result of our recent losses. We generally are able to carry NOLs forward to reduce taxable income in future years. However, our ability to utilize the NOLs is subject to the rules of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 382 generally restricts the use of NOLs after an “ownership change.” An ownership change occurs if, among other things, the shareholders (or specified groups of shareholders) who own or have owned, directly or indirectly, 5% or more of a corporation’s common stock or are otherwise treated as 5% shareholders under Section 382 and Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder increase their aggregate percentage ownership of that corporation’s stock by more than 50 percentage points over the lowest percentage of the stock owned by these shareholders over a three-year rolling period. In the event of an ownership change, Section 382 imposes an annual limitation on the amount of taxable income a corporation may offset with NOL carry forwards. This annual limitation is generally equal to the product of the value of the corporation’s stock on the date of the ownership change, multiplied by the long-term tax-exempt rate published monthly by the Internal Revenue Service. Any unused annual limitation may be carried over to later years until the applicable expiration date for the respective NOL carry forwards.
In order to reduce the likelihood that transactions in our common stock will result in an ownership change, on November 23, 2010, we adopted a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, which provides an economic disincentive for any person or group to become an owner, for relevant tax purposes, of 4.99% or more of our common stock. To further protect our NOL carryforwards, on May 2, 2011, we filed the Protective Charter Amendment to restrict transfers of our common stock if the effect of the transfer would be to cause the transferee to become an owner, for relevant tax purposes, of 4.99% or more of our common stock (a “Threshold Holder”) or cause the beneficial ownership of our common stock by any Threshold Holder to increase. However, we cannot ensure that our ability to use our NOLs to offset income will not become limited in the future. As a result, we could pay taxes earlier and in larger amounts than would be the case if our NOLs were available to reduce our federal income taxes without restriction.
The Protective Charter Amendment expires on the earliest of (i) May 2, 2014, (ii) such time as the Board of Directors determines the Protective Charter Amendment is no longer necessary for the preservation of our tax benefits and (iii) the date the Board of Directors determines that the Protective Charter Amendment is no longer in our and our shareholders’ best interest.
Our ability to maintain adequate sources of funding and liquidity and required capital levels may be negatively impacted by uncertainty in the economic environment which may, among other things, impact our ability to satisfy our obligations.
Liquidity is essential to our business. An inability to raise funds through deposits, borrowings, the sale of investments or loans, and other sources would have a substantial negative effect on our liquidity. Our access to funding sources in amounts adequate to finance our activities on terms which are acceptable to us could be impaired by factors that affect us specifically or the financial services industry or economy in general. Factors that could detrimentally impact our access to liquidity sources include concerns regarding the continued deterioration in our financial condition, increased regulatory actions against us and a decrease in the level of our business activity as a result of a downturn in the markets in which our loans or deposits are concentrated. Our ability to borrow could also be impaired by factors that are not specific to us, such as a disruption in the financial markets or negative views and expectations about the prospects for the financial industry in light of the recent turmoil faced by banking organizations and the credit markets.
The management of liquidity risk is critical to the management of our business and our ability to service our customer base. In managing our balance sheet, our primary source of funding is customer deposits. Our ability to continue to attract these deposits and other funding sources is subject to variability based upon a number of factors including volume and volatility in the securities’ markets, our financial condition, our credit rating and the relative interest rates that we are prepared to pay for these liabilities. The availability and level of deposits and other funding sources is highly dependent upon the perception of the liquidity and creditworthiness of the financial institution, which perception can change quickly in response to market conditions or circumstances unique to a particular company. Concerns about our past and future financial condition or concerns about our credit exposure to other persons could adversely impact our sources of liquidity, financial position, including regulatory capital ratios, results of operations and our business prospects.
If the level of deposits were to materially decrease, we would need to raise additional funds by increasing the interest that we pay on certificates of deposits or other depository accounts, seek other debt or equity financing or draw upon our available lines of credit. We rely on commercial and retail deposits, and to a lesser extent, advances from the FHLB and the Federal Reserve discount window, to fund our operations. Although we have historically been able to replace maturing deposits and advances as necessary, we might not be able to replace such funds in the future if, among other things, our results of operations or financial condition or the results of operations or financial condition of the FHLB or market conditions were to change.
Our line of credit with the FHLB serves as our primary outside source of liquidity. The Federal Reserve discount window also serves as an additional outside source of liquidity. Borrowings under this arrangement are through the Federal Reserve’s secondary facility and are subject to providing additional information regarding the financial condition of the bank and reasons for the borrowing. The duration of borrowings from the Federal Reserve discount window are generally for a very short period, usually overnight. In the event that these outside sources of liquidity become unavailable to us, we will need to seek additional sources of liquidity, including selling assets. We cannot assure you that we will be able to sell assets at a level to allow us to repay borrowings or meet our liquidity needs.
We constantly monitor our activities with respect to liquidity and evaluate closely our utilization of our cash assets; however, there can be no assurance that our liquidity or the cost of funds to us may not be materially and adversely impacted as a result of economic, market, or operational considerations that we may not be able to control.
Our business is subject to interest rate risk and fluctuations in interest rates may adversely affect our earnings.
The majority of our assets and liabilities are monetary in nature and subject to risk from changes in interest rates. Like most financial institutions, our earnings and profitability depend significantly on our net interest income, which is the difference between interest income on interest-earning assets, such as loans and investment securities, and interest expense on interest-bearing liabilities, such as deposits and borrowings. We expect that we will periodically experience “gaps” in the interest rate sensitivities of our assets and liabilities, meaning that either our interest-bearing liabilities will be more sensitive to changes in market interest rates than our interest-earning assets, or vice versa. If market interest rates should move contrary to our position, this “gap” will work against us and our earnings may be negatively affected. In light of our current volume and mix of interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities, our net interest margin could be expected to increase during periods of rising interest rates and, conversely, to decline during periods of falling interest rates. We are unable to predict or control fluctuations of market interest rates, which are affected by many factors, including the following:
| · | changes in unemployment; |
| · | international disorder and instability in domestic and foreign financial markets; and |
Our asset/liability management strategy may not be able to control our risk from changes in market interest rates and it may not be able to prevent changes in interest rates from having a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. From time to time, we may reposition our assets and liabilities to reduce our net interest income volatility. Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
Governmental regulation and regulatory actions against us may further impair our operations or restrict our growth.
Under the Compliance MOU, we are required to, among other things, (i) improve the Board of Directors’ oversight of the bank’s CMS; (ii) ensure the establishment and implementation of the bank’s CMS is commensurate with the complexity of the bank’s operations; (iii) perform a full review of all compliance policy and procedures, then revise and adopt policy and procedures to ensure compliance with all consumer protection regulations; (iv) enhance the bank’s training program relating to consumer protection and fair lending regulations; (v) develop and implement an effective internal monitoring program to ensure compliance with all applicable laws and regulations; (vi) strengthen the compliance audit function to ensure that the compliance audits are appropriately and comprehensively scoped; (vii) develop and implement internal controls for the bank’s third-party payment processing activity; (viii) strengthen the Board of Directors and senior management’s oversight of third-party relationships and (ix) enhance the bank’s overdraft payment program.
We cannot assure you whether or when the Company and the bank will be in full compliance with the Compliance MOU or whether or when the Compliance MOU will be terminated. Even if terminated, we may still be subject to other agreements with regulators that restrict our activities or may also continue to impose capital ratios or other requirements on our business. The requirements and restrictions of the Compliance MOU are judicially enforceable and the Company or the bank’s failure to comply with such requirements and restrictions may subject the Company and the bank to additional regulatory restrictions including: the imposition of additional regulatory requirements or orders; limitations on our activities; the imposition of civil monetary penalties; and further directives which affect our business, including, in the most severe circumstances, termination of the bank’s deposit insurance or appointment of a conservator or receiver for the bank.
In addition to the requirements of the Compliance MOU, we are subject to significant governmental supervision and regulation. These regulations are intended primarily for the protection of depositors’ funds, federal deposit insurance funds and the banking system as a whole, not security holders. These regulations affect our lending practices, capital structure, investment practices, dividend policy and growth, among other things. Congress and federal regulatory agencies continually review banking laws, regulations and policies for possible changes. Statutes and regulations affecting our business may be changed at any time and the interpretation of these statutes and regulations by examining authorities may also change. In addition, regulations may be adopted which increase our deposit insurance premiums and enact special assessments which could increase expenses associated with running our business and adversely affect our earnings.
There can be no assurance that such changes to the statutes and regulations or to their interpretation will not adversely affect our business. Such changes could subject us to additional costs, limit the types of financial services and products we may offer and/or increase the ability of non-banks to offer competing financial services and products, among other things. In addition to governmental supervision and regulation, we are subject to changes in other federal and state laws, including changes in tax laws, which could materially affect the banking industry. We are subject to the rules and regulations of the FRBSF, FDIC and DFI and may be subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was recently created pursuant to the Dodd-Frank Act. If we fail to comply with federal and state bank regulations, the regulators may limit our activities or growth, impose fines on us or ultimately cease our operations. Banking laws and regulations change from time to time. Bank regulations can hinder our ability to compete with financial services companies that are not regulated in the same manner or are less regulated. Federal and state bank regulatory agencies regulate many aspects of our operations. These areas include:
| · | the capital that must be maintained; |
| · | the kinds of activities that can be engaged in; |
| · | the kinds and amounts of investments that can be made; |
| · | the locations of offices; |
| · | insurance of deposits and the premiums that we must pay for this insurance; and |
| · | how much cash we must set aside as reserves for deposits. |
The Dodd-Frank Act provides for a comprehensive overhaul of the financial services industry within the United States. While the full effects of the legislation on us cannot yet be determined, it could result in higher compliance and other costs as a result of new regulations and new regulatory initiatives, including changes in the documentation and underwriting of qualified mortgages, reduced revenues and higher capital and liquidity requirements, among other things, which could adversely affect our business.
In addition, bank regulatory authorities have the authority to bring enforcement actions against banks and bank holding companies for unsafe or unsound practices in the conduct of their businesses or for violations of any law, rule or regulation, any condition imposed in writing by the appropriate bank regulatory agency or any written agreement with the authority. Possible enforcement actions against us could include a federal conservatorship or receivership for the bank, the issuance of additional orders that could be judicially enforced, the imposition of civil monetary penalties, the issuance of directives to enter into a strategic transaction, whether by merger or otherwise, with a third party, the termination of insurance of deposits, the issuance of removal and prohibition orders against institution-affiliated parties, and the enforcement of such actions through injunctions or restraining orders.
The impact of new regulatory standards will likely impose enhanced capital adequacy requirements on us.
The Basel Committee on Banking has adopted new capital, leverage and liquidity guidelines under the Basel Accord and the FRB has proposed new capital requirements on bank and bank holding companies, all of which may have the effect of raising our capital requirements and imposing new capital requirements beyond those required by current law and the Dodd-Frank Act. Increased regulatory capital requirements (and the associated compliance costs) whether due to the adoption of new laws and regulations, changes in existing laws and regulations, or more expansive or aggressive interpretations of existing laws and regulations, may have a material adverse effect on our business, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.
If we are unable to effectively manage the composition of our investment securities portfolio, which we expect will continue to comprise a significant portion of our earning assets, our net interest income and net interest margin could be adversely affected.
Our primary sources of interest income include interest on loans and leases, as well as interest earned on investment securities. Interest earned on investment securities represented 24.2% of our interest income in the year ended December 31, 2012 as compared to 20.7% of our interest income in the year ended December 31, 2011. We face significant competition for loans and leases that meet our credit profile. In addition, as part of our recovery plan, we have experienced a significant reduction in average loans and leases as we have continued our efforts to reduce our credit risk exposure, while deploying more excess cash and cash equivalents into investment securities. Accordingly, effectively managing our investment securities portfolio to generate interest income while managing the composition and risks associated with that portfolio, including the mix of government agency and non-agency securities, has become increasingly important. If we are unable to effectively manage our investment securities portfolio or if the interest income generated by our investment securities portfolio declines, our net interest income and net interest margin could be adversely affected.
The soundness of other financial institutions could adversely affect us.
Our ability to engage in routine funding transactions could be adversely affected by the actions and commercial soundness of other financial institutions. Defaults by, or even rumors or questions about, one or more financial services institutions, or the financial services industry generally, have led to market-wide liquidity problems and could lead to losses or defaults by us or by other institutions. There is no assurance that any such losses would not materially and adversely affect our results of operations.
Our deposit customers may pursue alternatives to deposits at our bank or seek higher yielding deposits causing us to incur increased funding costs.
We are facing increasing deposit-pricing pressures. Checking and savings account balances and other forms of deposits can decrease when our deposit customers perceive alternative investments, such as the stock market or other non-depository investments as providing superior expected returns or seek to spread their deposits over several banks to maximize FDIC insurance coverage. Furthermore, technology and other changes have made it more convenient for the bank’s customers to transfer funds into alternative investments including products offered by other financial institutions or non-bank service providers. Additional increases in short-term interest rates could increase transfers of deposits to higher yielding deposits. Efforts and initiatives we undertake to retain and increase deposits, including deposit pricing, can increase our costs. When the bank’s customers move money out of bank deposits in favor of alternative investments or into higher yielding deposits, or spread their accounts over several banks, we can lose a relatively inexpensive source of funds, thus increasing our funding costs.
The fiscal, monetary and regulatory policies of the federal government and its agencies could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.
The FRB regulates the supply of money and credit in the United States. Its policies determine in large part the cost of funds for lending and investing and the return earned on those loans and investments, both of which affect the net interest margin. It also can materially decrease the value of financial assets we hold, such as debt securities.
In an effort to stimulate the economy, the federal government and its agencies have taken various steps to keep interest rates at extremely low levels. Our net interest income and net interest margin may be negatively impacted by a prolonged low interest rate environment like we are currently experiencing as it may result in us holding lower yielding loans and securities on our balance sheet, particularly if we are unable to replace the maturing higher yielding assets with similar higher yielding assets. Changes in the slope of the yield curve, which represents the spread between short-term and long-term interest rates, could also reduce our net interest income and net interest margin. Historically, the yield curve is upward sloping, meaning short-term rates are lower than long-term rates. When the yield curve flattens, as is the case in the current interest rate environment, our net interest income and net interest margin could decrease as our cost of funds increases relative to the yield we can earn on our assets.
Changes in FRB policies and our regulatory environment generally are beyond our control, and we are unable to predict what changes may occur or the manner in which any future changes may affect our business, financial condition and results of operation.
The recent repeal of federal prohibitions on payment of interest on demand deposits could increase our interest expense.
All federal prohibitions on the ability of financial institutions to pay interest on demand deposit accounts were repealed as part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result, beginning on July 21, 2011, financial institutions could commence offering interest on demand deposits to compete for clients. Our interest expense will increase and our net interest margin will decrease if we have to offer higher rates of interest then we currently offer on demand deposits to attract additional customers or maintain current customers, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.
We rely on dividends from our subsidiaries for most of our revenue.
Because we are a holding company with no significant operations other than our bank, we depend upon dividends from our bank for a substantial portion of our revenues.
Hawaii law only permits the bank to pay dividends out of retained earnings as defined under Hawaii banking law (“Statutory Retained Earnings”), which differs from GAAP retained earnings. At December 31, 2012, the bank had Statutory Retained Earnings of $96.5 million. In light of the Company's improved capital position and financial condition, our Board of Directors is currently evaluating a variety of alternatives to strategically manage the Company's capital levels, including the Company's prospects and ability to pay cash dividends to our stockholders commencing in 2013. Any decision to pay dividends or otherwise take any action with respect to our capital position, is subject to the discretion of our Board of Directors as well as any applicable regulatory and contractual limitations.
Our information systems may experience an interruption or breach in security.
We rely heavily on communications and information systems to conduct our business. Any failure, interruption or breach in security of these systems could result in failures or disruptions in our customer relationship management, general ledger, deposit, loan and other systems. While we have policies and procedures designed and implemented to prevent or limit the effect of the failure, interruption or security breach of our information systems, there can be no assurance that any such failures, interruptions or security breaches will not occur or, if they do occur, that they will be adequately addressed. The occurrence of any failures, interruptions or security breaches of our information systems could damage our reputation, result in a loss of customer business, subject us to additional regulatory scrutiny or expose us to civil litigation and possible financial liability, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
We continually encounter technological change.
The financial services industry is continually undergoing rapid technological change with frequent introductions of new technology-driven products and services. The effective use of technology increases efficiency and enables financial institutions to better serve customers and to reduce costs. Our future success depends, in part, upon our ability to address the needs of our customers by using technology to provide products and services that will satisfy customer demands, as well as to create additional efficiencies in our operations. Many of our competitors have substantially greater resources to invest in technological improvements. We may not be able to effectively implement new technology-driven products and services or be successful in marketing these products and services to our customers. In addition, there are a limited number of qualified persons in our local marketplace with the knowledge and experience required to effectively maintain our information technology systems and implement our technology initiatives. Failure to successfully attract and retain qualified personnel, or keep pace with technological change affecting the financial services industry could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.
Financial services companies depend on the accuracy and completeness of information about customers and counterparties.
In deciding whether to extend credit or enter into other transactions, we may rely on information furnished by or on behalf of customers and counterparties, including financial statements, credit reports and other financial information. We may also rely on representations of those customers, counterparties or other third parties, such as independent auditors, as to the accuracy and completeness of that information. Reliance on inaccurate or misleading financial statements, credit reports or other financial information could have a material adverse impact on our business and, in turn, our financial condition and results of operations.
We are subject to various legal claims and litigation.
From time to time, customers, employees and others that we do business with make claims and take legal action against us for various business occurrences, including the performance of our fiduciary responsibilities. Regardless of whether these claims and legal actions are founded or unfounded, if such claims and legal actions are not resolved in a manner favorable to us, they may result in significant financial liability and/or adversely affect the market perception of us and our products and services, as well as impact customer demand for our products and services. Any financial liability or reputational damage could have a material adverse effect on our business, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Even if these claims and legal actions do not result in a financial liability or reputational damage, defending these claims and actions have resulted in, and will continue to result in, increased legal and professional services costs, which adds to our noninterest expense and negatively impacts our operating results.
We operate in a highly competitive industry and market area.
We face substantial competition in all areas of our operations from a variety of different competitors, many of which are larger and may have more financial resources. Such competitors primarily include national, regional and community banks within the various markets we operate. Additionally, various out of state banks conduct significant business in the market areas in which we currently operate. We also face competition from many other types of financial institutions, including, without limitation, savings banks, credit unions, finance companies, brokerage firms, insurance companies, factoring companies and other financial intermediaries.
The financial services industry could become even more competitive as a result of legislative, regulatory and technological changes and continued consolidation. Banks, securities firms and insurance companies can merge under the umbrella of a financial holding company, which can offer virtually any type of financial service, including banking, securities underwriting, insurance (both agency and underwriting) and merchant banking. Also, technology has lowered barriers to entry and made it possible for non-banks to offer products and services traditionally provided by banks, such as automatic transfer and automatic payment systems. Many of our competitors have fewer regulatory constraints and may have lower cost structures. Additionally, due to their size, many competitors may be able to achieve economies of scale and, as a result, may offer a broader range of products and services as well as better pricing for those products and services than we can.
Our ability to compete successfully depends on a number of factors, including, among other things:
| · | the ability to develop, maintain and build upon long-term customer relationships based on top quality service, high ethical standards and safe, sound assets; |
| · | the ability to expand our market position; |
| · | the scope, relevance and pricing of products and services offered to meet customer needs and demands; |
| · | the rate at which we introduce new products and services relative to our competitors; |
| · | customer satisfaction with our level of service; and |
| · | industry and general economic trends. |
Failure to perform in any of these areas could significantly weaken our competitive position, which could adversely affect our growth and profitability, which, in turn, could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.
The soundness of our financial condition may also affect our competitiveness. Customers may decide not to do business with the bank due to its financial condition. We have and continue to face additional regulatory restrictions that our competitors may not be subject to, including reducing our commercial real estate loan portfolio and improving the overall risk profile of the Company, which could adversely impact our ability to compete and attract and retain customers.
Our business could be adversely affected by unfavorable actions from rating agencies.
Ratings assigned by ratings agencies to us, our affiliates or our securities may impact the decision of certain customers, in particular, institutions, to do business with us. A rating downgrade or a negative rating could adversely affect our deposits and our business relationships. On February 23, 2011, Fitch Ratings upgraded the long-term Issuer Default Rating of the Company and the bank from CC to B- and removed the Company and the bank from Rating Watch Evolving. On May 20, 2011, Fitch Ratings upgraded the long-term Issuer Default Rating of the Company and the bank to B+ from B- and assigned a Positive Rating Outlook. On May 16, 2012, Fitch Ratings upgraded the long-term Issuer Default Rating of the Company and the bank to BB- from B+ and assigned a Stable Rating Outlook. However, our ratings may not improve further and may be downgraded in the future if there are adverse developments concerning our business.
We may suffer substantial losses due to our agreements to indemnify investors in the Private Placement against a broad range of potential claims.
In our agreements with the investors in the Private Placement, we agreed to indemnify the investors for a broad range of claims, including losses resulting from the inaccuracy or breach of representations or warranties made by us in such agreements and the breach by us to perform our covenants contained in such agreements. While these indemnities are subject to various limitations, if claims were successfully brought against us, it could potentially result in significant losses for the Company.
As a result of the recapitalization, Carlyle and Anchorage are substantial holders of our common stock.
Following the closing of the recapitalization, Anchorage and Carlyle each became beneficial owners of our outstanding common stock, with their respective ownership percentages each equating to approximately 23% as of December 31, 2012. Each has a representative on our Board of Directors. Accordingly, Anchorage and Carlyle have substantial influence over the election of directors to our board and over corporate policy, including decisions to enter into mergers or other extraordinary transactions. In addition, Carlyle and Anchorage have certain preemptive rights to maintain their respective fully diluted percentage ownership of our common stock in the event of certain issuances of securities by us. In pursuing their economic interests, Anchorage and Carlyle may make decisions with respect to fundamental corporate transactions that may not be aligned with the interests of other shareholders.
Risk Factors Related to Our Securities
The market price of our common stock could decline.
The trading price of our common stock may fluctuate widely as a result of a number of factors, many of which are outside our control. In addition, the stock market is subject to fluctuations in the share prices and trading volumes that affect the market prices of the shares of many companies. These broad market fluctuations could adversely affect the market price of our common stock. Among the factors that could affect our stock price are:
| | · | failure to comply with all of the requirements of any governmental orders or agreements we are or may become subject to and the possibility of resulting action by the regulators; |
| | · | deterioration of asset quality; |
| | · | the incurrence of losses; |
| | · | actual or anticipated quarterly fluctuations in our operating results and financial condition; |
| | · | changes in revenue or earnings/losses estimates or publication of research reports and recommendations by financial analysts; |
| | · | failure to meet analysts’ revenue or earnings/losses estimates; |
| | · | speculation in the press or investment community; |
| | · | strategic actions by us or our competitors, such as acquisitions or restructurings; |
| | · | additions or departures of key personnel; |
| | · | actions by institutional shareholders; |
| | · | fluctuations in the stock price and operating results of our competitors; |
| | · | future sales of our common stock, including sales of our common stock in short sale transactions; |
| | · | general market conditions and, in particular, developments related to market conditions for the financial services industry; |
| | · | proposed or adopted regulatory changes or developments; |
| | · | anticipated or pending investigations, proceedings or litigation that involve or affect us; or |
| | · | domestic and international economic factors unrelated to our performance. |
The stock market and, in particular, the market for financial institution stocks, have experienced significant volatility over the past few years. In addition, the trading volume in our common stock may fluctuate more than usual and cause significant price variations to occur. In addition, sales of shares by investors in the Private Placement may cause our share price to decrease. Accordingly, the common stock that you purchase may trade at a price lower than that at which they were purchased. Volatility in the market price of our common stock may prevent individual shareholders from being able to sell their shares when they want or at prices they find attractive.
A significant decline in our stock price could result in substantial losses for shareholders and could lead to costly and disruptive securities litigation.
The transferability of our common stock is limited as a result of the Tax Benefits Preservation Plan and the Protective Charter Amendment.
As described under “—Risk Factors Related to our Business—Our ability to use net operating loss carryforwards to reduce future tax payments may be limited or restricted,” we have generated significant NOLs as a result of our recent losses. In order to reduce the likelihood that transactions in our common stock would result in an ownership change, on November 23, 2010, we adopted a Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, which provides an economic disincentive for any person or group to become an owner, for relevant tax purposes, of 4.99% or more of our common stock. To further protect our NOLs, we filed the Protective Charter Amendment on May 2, 2011 to restrict transfers of our stock if the effect of an attempted transfer would cause the transferee to become a Threshold Holder or cause the beneficial ownership of a Threshold Holder to increase. The Protective Charter Amendment expires on the earliest of (i) May 2, 2014, (ii) such time as the Board of Directors determines the Protective Charter Amendment is no longer necessary for the preservation of our tax benefits and (iii) the date the Board of Directors determines that the Protective Charter Amendment is no longer in our and our shareholders’ best interest.
The Tax Benefits Preservation Plan and the Protective Charter Amendment have the effect of limiting transferability of our common stock because they may make it more difficult and more expensive to acquire our common stock under the circumstances described above and, in the case of the Protective Charter Amendment, prohibit certain acquisitions of our common stock as described above. These transfer restrictions may discourage, delay or prevent a change in control of the Company and make it more difficult for a potential acquirer to consummate an acquisition of the Company. In addition, these provisions could limit the price that investors would be willing to pay in the future for our common shares and may limit a shareholder’s ability to dispose of our common shares by reducing the class of potential acquirers for our common shares.
Anti-takeover provisions in our restated articles of incorporation and bylaws and applicable federal and state law may limit the ability of another party to acquire us, which could cause our stock price to decline.
Various provisions of our restated articles of incorporation and bylaws and certain other actions we have taken could delay or prevent a third-party from acquiring us, even if doing so might be beneficial to our shareholders. These include, among other things, the Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, the Protective Charter Amendment and the authorization to issue “blank check” preferred stock by action of the board of directors acting alone, thus without obtaining shareholder approval. In addition, applicable provisions of federal and state law require regulatory approval in connection with certain acquisitions of our common stock and supermajority voting provisions in connection with certain transactions. These provisions of our restated articles of incorporation and by-laws and federal and state law may prevent a merger or acquisition that would be attractive to shareholders and could limit the price investors would be willing to pay in the future for our common stock.
Resales of our common stock in the public market may cause the market price of our common stock to fall.
We issued a large number of common stock to the investors in the Private Placement. Carlyle and Anchorage (the “Lead Investors”) have certain registration rights with respect to the common stock held by them. The registration rights for the Lead Investors will allow them to sell their common stock without compliance with the volume and manner of sale limitations under Rule 144 promulgated under the Securities Act. The market value of our common stock could decline as a result of sales by the Lead Investors from time to time of a substantial amount of the common stock held by them.
Our common stock is equity and therefore is subordinate to our subsidiaries’ indebtedness and preferred stock.
Our common stock constitutes equity interests and does not constitute indebtedness. As such, common stock will rank junior to all current and future indebtedness and other non-equity claims on us with respect to assets available to satisfy claims against us, including in the event of our liquidation. We may, and the bank and our other subsidiaries may also, incur additional indebtedness from time to time and may increase our aggregate level of outstanding indebtedness. As of December 31, 2012, we had $105.0 million in face amount of trust preferred securities outstanding and accrued and unpaid dividends thereon of $12.2 million. Additionally, holders of common stock are subject to the prior dividend and liquidation rights of any holders of our preferred stock that may be outstanding from time to time. The Board of Directors is authorized to cause us to issue additional classes or series of preferred stock without any action on the part of our stockholders. If we issue preferred shares in the future that have a preference over our common stock with respect to the payment of dividends or upon liquidation, or if we issue preferred shares with voting rights that dilute the voting power of the common stock, then the rights of holders of our common stock or the market price of our common stock could be adversely affected.
There is a limited trading market for our common stock and as a result, you may not be able to resell your shares at or above the price you pay for them.
Although our common stock is listed for trading on the NYSE, the volume of trading in our common shares is lower than many other companies listed on the NYSE. A public trading market with depth, liquidity and orderliness depends on the presence in the market of willing buyers and sellers of our common shares at any given time. This presence depends on the individual decisions of investors and general economic and market conditions over which we have no control.
Our common stock is not insured and you could lose the value of your entire investment.
An investment in our common stock is not a deposit and is not insured against loss by the government.
| ITEM 1B. | UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS |
None.
Certifications
We have filed the required certifications under Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 as Exhibits 31.1 and 31.2 to this annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. Last year, we submitted to the NYSE on May 17, 2012 our annual CEO certification regarding the Company’s compliance with the NYSE’s corporate governance listing standards. This year, we intend to submit to the NYSE our annual CEO certification within 30 days of the Company’s annual meeting of shareholders, which is scheduled for April 26, 2013.
We hold title to the land and building in which our Main branch office and headquarters, Hilo branch office, Kailua-Kona branch office, Pearl City branch office and certain operations offices are located. We also hold title to portions of the land our Moiliili branch office and operations center are located. The remaining lands on which the Moiliili branch office and operations center are located are leased, as are all remaining branch and support office facilities. We also own four floors of a commercial office condominium in downtown Honolulu where certain administrative and support operations are located.
We occupy or hold leases for approximately 40 other properties including office space for our remaining branches and residential mortgage lending subsidiary. These leases expire on various dates through 2038 and generally contain renewal options for periods ranging from five to 15 years. For additional information relating to lease rental expense and commitments as of December 31, 2012, see Note 19 to the Consolidated Financial Statements under “Part II, Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.”
Certain claims and lawsuits have been filed or are pending against us arising in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, all such matters are of a nature that, if disposed of unfavorably, would not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated results of operations or financial position.
| ITEM 4. | MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES |
Not applicable
PART II
| ITEM 5. | MARKET FOR REGISTRANT’S COMMON EQUITY, RELATED SHAREHOLDER MATTERS AND ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES |
Our common stock is traded on the NYSE under the ticker symbol “CPF.” Set forth below is a line graph comparing the cumulative total stockholder return on the Company’s common stock, based on the market price of the common stock and assuming reinvestment of dividends, with the Russell 2000 Index and the S&P SmallCap 600 Commercial Bank Index for the five year period commencing December 31, 2007 and ending December 31, 2012. The graph assumes the investment of $100 on December 31, 2007.
Indexed Total Annual Return
(as of December 31, 2012)
