Our latest report, updated October 27, 2025, offers a thorough examination of First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB), assessing its business model, financial statements, historical performance, growth potential, and fair value. This analysis is framed within a Warren Buffett/Charlie Munger investment framework and includes a comparative benchmark against six industry peers, including Bank of Hawaii Corporation (BOH), East West Bancorp, Inc. (EWBC), and Western Alliance Bancorporation (WAL). This comprehensive review provides investors with critical insights into FHB's competitive standing and long-term viability.
Mixed outlook for First Hawaiian, Inc.
The bank commands a dominant market share in Hawaii, providing a stable, low-cost source of funds.
However, this strength is also a weakness, as growth is tied to the slow-growing Hawaiian economy.
Financially, its core operations are profitable and highly liquid, with a conservative loan-to-deposit ratio of 67.4%.
A key risk is $388 million in unrealized losses on its investment portfolio, which weighs on its book value.
While the stock offers a sustainable dividend yield of 4.20%, its earnings and share price have seen little growth.
FHB is most suitable for income-focused investors, not those seeking significant capital appreciation.
US: NASDAQ
First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB) operates a straightforward and traditional banking business model, deeply embedded in the economies of Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan. As the oldest and largest bank in Hawaii, its core operation revolves around attracting deposits from local individuals and businesses and then using those funds to make loans. Its main product lines can be segmented into three key areas: lending services, deposit products, and fee-based financial services. Lending is the primary revenue driver, encompassing commercial loans for businesses, real estate loans for both commercial properties and residential mortgages, and consumer loans like auto financing and credit cards. Deposit gathering, including checking accounts, savings accounts, and time deposits, forms the funding base for these lending activities. Finally, the bank generates non-interest income through services such as wealth management, trust services, and credit card fees, which supplement its core lending profits. The entire business model is built on a foundation of long-term customer relationships and a dominant physical presence in its core market, creating a powerful, localized franchise.
The bank's lending operations are its financial engine, primarily generating revenue through net interest income—the difference between the interest earned on loans and the interest paid on deposits. This segment is diversified across several categories. As of early 2024, the loan portfolio was well-balanced, with Commercial and Industrial (C&I) loans, Commercial Real Estate (CRE), and Residential Mortgages each constituting roughly one-third of the total. The market for these loans is largely confined to Hawaii, an economy valued at over $90 billion but characterized by slow, stable growth, typically tracking below the U.S. national average. Competition is a near-duopoly with Bank of Hawaii, with both institutions controlling a substantial majority of the market, making it difficult for new entrants to gain a foothold. The customers are local businesses, real estate developers, and residents of Hawaii, who often have deep, multi-generational ties to the bank. This creates significant customer stickiness, as switching costs go beyond finances and include disrupting long-standing business relationships. The competitive moat for FHB's lending business is its unparalleled local knowledge and underwriting expertise, combined with the economies of scale derived from its dominant market share, which allows it to maintain disciplined pricing and credit quality.
Deposit gathering is the other side of the balance sheet and the cornerstone of FHB’s moat. The bank offers a standard suite of deposit products, including noninterest-bearing checking accounts, savings accounts, and certificates of deposit (CDs). These deposits, totaling around $24 billion, provide a stable and low-cost source of funding. The Hawaiian deposit market is highly concentrated, with FHB commanding an impressive market share of approximately 40%. This market concentration, coupled with Hawaii's geographic isolation, limits customers' choices and fosters a less price-sensitive environment compared to more competitive mainland markets. The primary competitors are again Bank of Hawaii and, to a lesser extent, a few smaller local banks and credit unions. Customers range from individual retail depositors to large local corporations and government entities. The stickiness of these deposits is extremely high due to the inconvenience of moving primary banking relationships and the trust FHB has built over its 160+ year history. This creates a formidable competitive advantage, as this sticky, low-cost funding base is difficult for any potential competitor to replicate and provides a durable cost advantage that supports profitability through various interest rate cycles.
FHB’s third key business line is its suite of fee-based services, which includes wealth management, trust and estate services, card processing, and service charges on deposit accounts. While smaller than its lending operations, this segment provides a valuable source of non-interest income, which accounted for approximately 23% of total revenue in early 2024. This diversification helps insulate earnings from fluctuations in interest rates. The market for these services in Hawaii is competitive, with national brokerage firms and independent advisors vying for customers alongside the local banks. FHB’s main advantage here is its ability to cross-sell these services to its vast, captive commercial and retail banking customer base. A small business owner who has a loan and checking account with FHB is more likely to use the bank for their personal wealth management or their company's card processing needs. The trust and brand recognition built through core banking services create a natural funnel for these higher-margin products. The moat in this segment is therefore a direct extension of its dominant banking franchise; it is less about having a superior product and more about leveraging existing, sticky customer relationships.
In conclusion, First Hawaiian's business model is a textbook example of a geographically-focused economic moat. The bank operates as a big fish in a small, isolated pond. Its competitive advantages are not derived from unique technology or innovative products, but from the structural characteristics of its market. The high barriers to entry, created by its dominant market share, brand loyalty built over a century, and extensive physical branch network, are formidable. This structure allows the bank to gather low-cost deposits and lend them out at profitable rates with a deep understanding of local credit risk. The result is a highly resilient and consistently profitable business.
However, this powerful moat comes with inherent limitations. The bank's fortunes are inextricably linked to the health of the Hawaiian economy, which is heavily reliant on tourism and U.S. military spending. Any significant downturn in these sectors would directly impact loan demand and credit quality. Furthermore, the slow-growth nature of an island economy means that FHB is a low-growth enterprise. Its resilience and stability are its key strengths, but investors should not expect rapid expansion. The business model is built for durability, not dynamism, offering a defensive investment profile centered on a well-protected, cash-generating franchise in a mature market.
First Hawaiian's financial health is characterized by a blend of operational strength and balance sheet risks. On the revenue front, the bank shows positive momentum. Net interest income, the primary driver of earnings, grew 8.06% year-over-year in the most recent quarter. This suggests the bank is effectively managing the spread between its loan yields and deposit costs. Profitability metrics are adequate, with a return on average equity of 10.88%, indicating it generates decent profits from its capital base. Furthermore, the bank has demonstrated strong cost control, with its efficiency ratio improving to a solid 55.5%, meaning more of its revenue is converting to profit.
The balance sheet reveals a very strong liquidity position, which is a significant positive. The bank's loan-to-deposit ratio stands at a low 67.4%, far below the industry norm. This indicates that First Hawaiian is funded primarily by stable, core customer deposits and is not overly reliant on more volatile, expensive funding sources. This provides a substantial cushion to absorb potential deposit outflows and fund loan growth without pressure. Credit quality also appears stable, with provisions for loan losses remaining low and consistent at $4.5 million per quarter.
However, there are notable red flags. The most significant is the bank's sensitivity to interest rates, reflected in the -$388 million balance in Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI). These are unrealized, or 'paper,' losses on its securities portfolio that have eroded a substantial portion of its tangible equity. This makes the bank's capital position appear weaker on a tangible basis and exposes it to risks if it were forced to sell those securities. Additionally, the bank's allowance for credit losses, at 1.17% of total loans, is adequate but not overly conservative. Overall, First Hawaiian's financial foundation appears stable from a core earnings and liquidity perspective, but its vulnerability to interest rate changes via its large securities portfolio introduces a meaningful element of risk for investors to monitor.
An analysis of First Hawaiian, Inc.'s (FHB) past performance over the last five fiscal years (FY2020–FY2024) reveals a company with a strong but narrow moat that has struggled to generate meaningful growth. The bank's historical record is one of stability and resilience in credit quality, but this has been overshadowed by stagnant earnings, deteriorating operational efficiency, and minimal shareholder return beyond a flat dividend. The performance reflects its dependence on the slow-growing Hawaiian economy and suggests challenges in managing its cost structure in the current interest rate environment, placing it behind more dynamic peers.
Historically, FHB's growth has been muted. Over the analysis period, gross loans grew at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of just over 2%, from $13.3 billion to $14.4 billion. More concerning is the trend in deposits, which peaked at $21.8 billion in 2021 and have since declined to $20.3 billion in 2024. This sluggish balance sheet activity has translated into choppy top-line growth and a volatile earnings path. After a strong recovery post-pandemic, with EPS reaching $2.08 in 2022, earnings have since fallen for two consecutive years to $1.80, indicating that the bank has been unable to sustain profitability momentum.
From a profitability standpoint, FHB's record is mixed and shows signs of erosion. While its return on equity (ROE) peaked at 10.79% in 2022, it has since declined to 9.02%. A major concern is the bank's operational efficiency. Its efficiency ratio—a measure of non-interest expense relative to revenue, where lower is better—has steadily worsened from 50.1% in FY2020 to 62.0% in FY2024. This performance lags key competitors like Bank of Hawaii and is significantly worse than higher-growth peers such as East West Bancorp, which operates with an efficiency ratio below 45%. This trend suggests FHB is struggling to control costs, which is eating into its profitability.
For shareholders, returns have been driven almost entirely by the dividend, which has remained unchanged at $1.04 per share for the entire five-year period. While the consistency is commendable, the lack of any growth is a significant drawback for dividend-income investors. Share buybacks have been inconsistent and have only modestly reduced the share count over time. Overall, the historical record does not inspire confidence in management's ability to drive growth or enhance profitability. The bank appears to be a safe but stagnant institution whose past performance suggests limited upside potential.
The U.S. regional banking industry is navigating a period of significant change that will shape its growth trajectory over the next 3-5 years. The primary challenge is the normalization of interest rates after a period of historic lows. A 'higher-for-longer' rate environment is pressuring net interest margins (NIMs) as funding costs, particularly for deposits, are rising. Banks are now competing fiercely for low-cost deposits, a battle that favors established players with sticky customer relationships. Simultaneously, the industry is undergoing a digital transformation. The adoption of digital banking tools, accelerated by the pandemic, is now a baseline expectation. This requires ongoing investment in technology to improve customer experience and operational efficiency, creating a potential strain on smaller banks with limited IT budgets. The U.S. regional banking market is projected to grow at a modest CAGR of 2-4%, closely tracking nominal GDP growth.
Several factors will dictate future demand. Regulatory scrutiny, heightened after the failures of several regional banks in 2023, is leading to stricter capital and liquidity requirements, which could constrain lending capacity and increase compliance costs. Catalysts for growth include potential government infrastructure spending filtering down to local economies and the continued strength of small and medium-sized businesses, the core clientele for regional banks. Competitive intensity remains high, not just from other banks but increasingly from non-bank lenders and fintech companies that compete aggressively on price and digital convenience. For a bank like First Hawaiian, its geographic isolation and market dominance create a formidable barrier to entry, making it harder for new competitors to establish a physical presence, though digital competition remains a persistent threat.
This valuation, as of October 27, 2025, uses a stock price of $24.78. A triangulated approach suggests that FHB is currently trading within a reasonable fair value range. The stock appears fairly valued with limited immediate upside, making it a candidate for a watchlist or for income-oriented investors.
A multiples-based approach shows FHB’s TTM P/E ratio at 12.1, slightly above the regional banking industry average of 11.74. Applying this peer multiple to FHB's TTM EPS of $2.05 implies a fair value of $24.07. The primary valuation metric for banks, Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV), stands at 1.76, which is below the peer median of 2.30x, suggesting some relative cheapness. A conservative P/TBV multiple of 1.65x results in a value of $23.18. This approach suggests a value range of roughly $23.10 to $26.65.
From a yield-based perspective, FHB offers a compelling dividend yield of 4.20%, which compares favorably to the regional bank average of around 3.31%. The dividend payout ratio of 50.78% is sustainable, indicating the company is not over-extending itself to make payments. A simple Gordon Growth Model, using a 2.5% long-term growth rate and a 7% required return, values the stock at approximately $23.63, further supporting the idea that it is trading near its fair value. Finally, an asset-based view shows FHB’s Price to Book (P/B) ratio of 1.12 is justified by its Return on Equity (ROE) of 10.88%, aligning with the sector average and suggesting the market is pricing its profitability fairly. After triangulating these methods, the final estimated fair value range is $23.50–$26.00.
Warren Buffett would view First Hawaiian as a classic 'fortress' bank, a type of business he understands well and has historically favored. He would be drawn to the company's powerful and durable moat, stemming from its duopoly in the isolated Hawaiian market where it commands a leading 36% deposit share. This market dominance allows FHB to generate consistent and attractive returns on equity, around 13%, and maintain a strong Net Interest Margin of 2.9%. Furthermore, Buffett would appreciate the conservative balance sheet, evidenced by a strong Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratio of 11-12%, which provides a substantial safety buffer. The primary risk and red flag would be the bank's complete dependence on the Hawaiian economy, a single point of failure tied to tourism and military spending. While the quality of the franchise is high, the valuation, at 1.8x price-to-tangible-book-value, might not offer the significant margin of safety Buffett typically seeks for a business with low single-digit growth prospects. Therefore, he would likely admire the business but avoid the stock at its current price, waiting for a more attractive entry point. If forced to pick top banks, Buffett would likely choose East West Bancorp (EWBC) for its superior 17% ROE and niche moat, Bank of America (BAC) for its unmatched scale and diversification, and M&T Bank (MTB) for its legendary conservative culture and management. Buffett's decision on FHB could change if the stock price were to fall by 15-20%, creating a more compelling margin of safety for this high-quality, geographically concentrated asset.
Charlie Munger would view First Hawaiian as a textbook example of a high-quality business with a durable, easy-to-understand moat. The bank's duopolistic position in a captive island economy provides a predictable earnings stream, a stable low-cost deposit base, and protection from the intense competition mainland banks face. He would appreciate its conservative balance sheet, reflected in a strong Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio of around 12% and a low loan-to-deposit ratio of 70%, which aligns with his cardinal rule of avoiding stupidity and permanent capital loss. However, Munger's enthusiasm would be tempered by the bank's limited growth prospects, as its fortunes are inextricably tied to the slow-growing Hawaiian economy, preventing it from being a long-term compounder that can reinvest capital at high rates. Management rightly returns most cash to shareholders through a dividend payout ratio of 55-60%, a sensible move for a mature business that benefits income-focused investors. If forced to choose the three best banks, Munger would likely select East West Bancorp (EWBC) for its superior niche moat and 17%+ ROE, followed by First Hawaiian (FHB) and Bank of Hawaii (BOH) for their simple, fortress-like duopoly. For Munger, FHB is a good business at a fair price, but not the great, compounding machine he typically seeks for a concentrated bet; he would likely buy a small position for its stability. His decision could become more enthusiastic if a market downturn offered the stock at a 20-25% discount, providing a greater margin of safety.
Bill Ackman would likely view First Hawaiian as a high-quality, simple, and predictable business, admiring its dominant duopolistic market share of 36% in a protected geographical market. This concentration provides a strong moat and stable earnings, evidenced by a consistent return on equity around 13% and a solid CET1 capital ratio of 11.8%, which signifies a well-capitalized and low-risk balance sheet. However, Ackman would ultimately pass on the investment because it lacks the key elements he seeks: a catalyst for value creation or a situation where his activist approach could unlock significant upside. The bank's efficiency ratio of 62% is respectable but not distressed, offering little room for a dramatic operational turnaround, and its growth is tethered to the slow-moving Hawaiian economy. For retail investors, this means FHB is a stable income provider, but it does not offer the potential for the significant capital appreciation that an Ackman-style investment targets. A severe market overreaction that pushes the valuation to a deep discount to its intrinsic value might change his mind, but under normal circumstances, he would look elsewhere for opportunities.
First Hawaiian, Inc. presents a unique investment profile within the regional banking landscape, largely defined by its commanding presence in a geographically constrained market. Unlike mainland banks that navigate fierce competition across multiple states, FHB operates in a virtual duopoly with Bank of Hawaii. This market structure is a significant advantage, granting it a 'fortress' balance sheet built on a loyal, low-cost deposit base. For a bank, cheap and stable funding from deposits is crucial as it directly impacts profitability, measured by the net interest margin (the difference between loan income and deposit interest expense). FHB's entrenched position makes it difficult for new entrants to challenge its market share, providing a durable competitive advantage.
This island fortress, however, doubles as a gilded cage. FHB's destiny is inextricably linked to the economic cycles of Hawaii, which are heavily dependent on tourism, U.S. military expenditures, and the local real estate market. This concentration risk means the bank is less insulated from sector-specific downturns compared to a more diversified competitor like Zions Bancorporation, which operates across several western states with varied economic drivers. An event that disrupts global travel, for instance, could disproportionately harm FHB's loan portfolio and growth prospects. Therefore, investors must weigh the benefits of its market dominance against the risks of its economic insularity.
When benchmarked against higher-growth mainland peers, FHB's strategy appears more conservative and focused on stability. Banks like Western Alliance Bancorporation target high-growth niche commercial sectors, which can deliver superior returns but also carry higher volatility. FHB’s growth is instead tethered to the more modest expansion of the Hawaiian economy. This translates into a business model that prioritizes strong capital ratios, prudent underwriting, and consistent dividend payments over rapid asset growth. It appeals to a different kind of investor—one who values predictable income and lower risk over the potential for explosive capital gains.
Ultimately, an investment in First Hawaiian is a bet on the long-term stability and modest growth of the Hawaiian economy. The bank's performance metrics, such as its return on equity and efficiency ratio, are consistently solid but rarely lead the industry. Its valuation often reflects this trade-off, commanding a premium for its market stability while being discounted for its limited growth horizon. For a retail investor, FHB represents a well-managed, income-generating utility within the banking world, distinct from mainland banks that offer different risk-and-reward propositions based on diversification, strategic focus, and competitive intensity.
Bank of Hawaii Corporation (BOH) is First Hawaiian's primary and most direct competitor, sharing the same geographically concentrated market. Both banks dominate the Hawaiian financial landscape, creating a duopoly that results in similar business models, risk exposures, and strategic priorities. While FHB has historically held a slight edge in total assets and deposits, BOH often competes fiercely on product offerings and customer service. The choice between them often comes down to minor differences in financial performance, such as efficiency ratios or loan portfolio composition, and relative valuation at a given point in time.
Business & Moat: Both FHB and BOH enjoy a powerful moat rooted in their shared market dominance. Brand strength is formidable for both, built over a century of local operations; FHB holds a leading deposit market share of around 36% in Hawaii, with BOH close behind at approximately 33%. Switching costs are high for customers due to the limited number of alternatives and deep community ties. Scale advantages are significant within Hawaii, but neither can match the scale of large mainland banks. Network effects are strong locally through their extensive branch and ATM networks. Regulatory barriers are standard for the banking industry but are amplified by the high cost of establishing a physical presence in Hawaii. Overall Winner: FHB, by a razor-thin margin, due to its slightly larger market share and deposit base, which provides a marginal scale advantage.
Financial Statement Analysis: Financially, the two are very similar. In terms of revenue growth, both are tied to Hawaii's GDP growth, with recent performance showing low single-digit increases. FHB often reports a slightly better net interest margin (NIM), recently around 2.9% versus BOH's 2.7%, making FHB slightly better on core profitability. BOH is often superior in efficiency, with an efficiency ratio (lower is better) sometimes dipping below 60%, while FHB's is closer to 62%. Both maintain strong balance sheets, with Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital ratios well above the regulatory minimum of 7%, typically in the 11-12% range, indicating a solid buffer against losses. FHB's return on equity (ROE) of around 13% is often slightly higher than BOH's 12%. Overall Financials winner: FHB, due to its consistently stronger NIM and ROE, which point to more effective capital utilization.
Past Performance: Over the last five years, both stocks have delivered similar, albeit modest, total shareholder returns (TSR), heavily influenced by dividend payments rather than capital appreciation. FHB's 5-year revenue CAGR has been around 2%, nearly identical to BOH's. In terms of earnings, FHB's EPS growth has been slightly more stable, whereas BOH has shown periods of slightly faster growth offset by more volatility. Margin trends have seen compression for both due to the interest rate environment, but FHB has managed its NIM slightly better, with a smaller decline in basis points since 2021. Risk metrics are almost identical, with both stocks exhibiting low betas (around 0.8-0.9) and low volatility relative to the broader banking sector. Overall Past Performance winner: FHB, for its slightly more stable earnings stream and better margin preservation over the past cycle.
Future Growth: Growth prospects for both banks are fundamentally tied to the health of the Hawaiian economy. Key drivers include tourism recovery, U.S. military spending, and residential and commercial construction projects. Neither bank has a significant growth pipeline outside of these core drivers. FHB has shown a slightly greater focus on digital transformation to improve efficiency, which could provide a cost-saving edge. BOH has been actively managing its bond portfolio to position for a changing rate environment. Consensus estimates typically forecast low single-digit earnings growth for both. Regarding ESG tailwinds, both are exposed to climate-related risks in Hawaii but are also involved in green financing initiatives. Overall Growth outlook winner: Even, as neither has a distinct, game-changing growth catalyst that the other lacks.
Fair Value: Both banks typically trade at similar valuation multiples. FHB's price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is currently around 11.5x, while BOH's is 12.0x. On a price-to-tangible-book-value (P/TBV) basis, FHB trades at 1.8x compared to BOH's 1.9x. FHB currently offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 5.0% versus BOH's 4.8%, with both maintaining a sustainable payout ratio of around 55-60%. The slight valuation discount for FHB seems unjustified given its marginally stronger profitability metrics. Quality versus price suggests FHB offers slightly better value. Overall better value today: FHB, as it offers similar quality with superior profitability metrics and a higher dividend yield at a slightly cheaper valuation.
Winner: FHB over BOH. This verdict is based on FHB's slight but consistent advantages in key operational and financial metrics. Its primary strength is its leading market share in Hawaii, which translates into a superior net interest margin (2.9% vs. BOH's 2.7%) and a higher return on equity (13% vs. 12%). While BOH is a formidable and nearly identical competitor, FHB's ability to generate more profit from its assets gives it a narrow edge. The main risk for both remains their shared dependence on the Hawaiian economy. Ultimately, FHB's slightly better profitability and higher dividend yield at a comparable valuation make it the marginally better investment choice.
East West Bancorp, Inc. (EWBC) is a unique regional bank with a specialized focus on serving the Chinese-American community and facilitating cross-border business between the United States and Greater China. This creates a distinct business model compared to FHB's traditional, geographically focused community banking. EWBC offers higher growth potential due to its niche market and international exposure but also carries higher geopolitical and credit risks. In essence, EWBC is a growth-oriented niche player, while FHB is a stable, geographically-entrenched institution.
Business & Moat: EWBC's moat is built on deep cultural and linguistic expertise, a niche that larger banks find difficult to penetrate. Its brand is exceptionally strong within its target demographic. Switching costs are high for its customers who rely on its specialized cross-border services. While FHB's moat is based on geographic dominance (36% deposit share in Hawaii), EWBC's is based on demographic and service specialization. In terms of scale, EWBC is significantly larger with over $68 billion in assets compared to FHB's $24 billion. EWBC's network effects are strong among its client base, connecting businesses in the US and Asia. Regulatory barriers are higher for EWBC due to its international operations. Overall Winner: EWBC, as its specialized, hard-to-replicate business model provides access to a higher-growth market that insulates it from the intense competition faced by traditional banks.
Financial Statement Analysis: EWBC consistently outperforms FHB on key financial metrics. Revenue growth at EWBC has averaged in the high single digits over the past five years, far outpacing FHB's low single-digit growth. EWBC's profitability is top-tier, with a return on equity (ROE) often exceeding 17%, compared to FHB's 13%. This is driven by a strong net interest margin (NIM) of over 3.5% and a highly efficient operation, with an efficiency ratio often below 45% (vs. FHB's 62%). A lower efficiency ratio means the bank spends less to generate a dollar of revenue. EWBC also maintains a strong balance sheet with a CET1 capital ratio around 12.5%, comparable to FHB's 11.8%. FHB is better on its loan-to-deposit ratio, typically around 70%, indicating a more liquid balance sheet than EWBC's 85%. Overall Financials winner: EWBC, due to its vastly superior profitability, efficiency, and growth, which more than compensate for its slightly less liquid balance sheet.
Past Performance: EWBC has a much stronger track record of performance. Its 5-year revenue CAGR has been approximately 8%, while FHB's has been 2%. This has translated into superior earnings growth, with EWBC's EPS CAGR over the same period at nearly 12%. Consequently, EWBC's total shareholder return (TSR) over the last five years has significantly exceeded FHB's, reflecting its strong fundamental performance. In terms of risk, EWBC's stock is more volatile (beta around 1.3) due to its exposure to commercial real estate and US-China trade relations, whereas FHB's stock is less volatile (beta around 0.9). Margin trends have favored EWBC, which has expanded its NIM while FHB's has compressed. Overall Past Performance winner: EWBC, for its exceptional growth in revenue and earnings, leading to superior shareholder returns, despite its higher volatility.
Future Growth: EWBC's growth prospects are tied to its unique niche. Drivers include continued wealth creation within the Asian-American community, expansion of its digital banking platform, and growth in its cross-border trade finance business. While it faces risks from US-China geopolitical tensions, its position as a financial bridge remains a powerful long-term catalyst. FHB's growth is limited to the Hawaiian economy. Consensus estimates project mid-to-high single-digit EPS growth for EWBC, versus low single-digit for FHB. EWBC's ability to tap into a dynamic demographic gives it a clear edge in revenue opportunities. Overall Growth outlook winner: EWBC, as its specialized business model offers multiple avenues for growth that are unavailable to FHB.
Fair Value: EWBC's superior performance is reflected in its valuation, but it often still appears reasonably priced. It typically trades at a P/E ratio of around 9.0x, which is lower than FHB's 11.5x. This lower P/E multiple is likely due to the market's perception of its higher risk profile (geopolitical and credit concentration). On a P/TBV basis, EWBC trades at 1.6x, lower than FHB's 1.8x. EWBC offers a lower dividend yield of around 3.0% but with a much lower payout ratio (<30%), indicating significant capacity for future increases. Quality vs. price: EWBC offers higher quality and growth at a cheaper valuation. Overall better value today: EWBC, as it presents a compelling case of a superior bank trading at a discount to a lower-growth peer, offering significant value on a risk-adjusted basis.
Winner: EWBC over FHB. The verdict is clear-cut based on EWBC's superior business model, financial performance, and growth outlook. Its key strength is its entrenched position as the 'go-to' bank for its niche demographic, which drives industry-leading profitability (ROE of 17% vs. FHB's 13%) and efficiency (efficiency ratio of 45% vs. 62%). While FHB is a stable, well-run bank, its notable weakness is its complete reliance on the slow-growing Hawaiian economy. The primary risk for EWBC is geopolitical tension, but its long track record of managing this risk is proven. EWBC offers investors a rare combination of high performance and reasonable valuation that FHB cannot match.
Western Alliance Bancorporation (WAL) represents a high-growth, specialty commercial banking model that contrasts sharply with FHB's conservative, consumer-focused approach. WAL focuses on specific business lines such as mortgage warehouse lending, technology, and homeowners' association (HOA) banking across fast-growing markets in the American West. This strategy has historically delivered industry-leading growth and profitability but also exposes the bank to higher volatility and concentrated credit risks, as seen during the 2023 regional banking crisis. FHB is a low-beta stability play, whereas WAL is a higher-beta growth story.
Business & Moat: WAL's moat is derived from its deep expertise in specialized commercial niches. Its brand is strong among its target business clients, who value its tailored solutions and quick execution. Switching costs are high for these clients due to the specialized nature of the services. In contrast to FHB's geographic moat in Hawaii (36% market share), WAL has a national presence in its chosen verticals, such as being a top 5 bank for HOA services. In terms of scale, WAL is larger, with assets over $70 billion compared to FHB's $24 billion. WAL's network effects exist within its industry verticals, connecting businesses and entrepreneurs. Overall Winner: WAL, because its specialized, national-scale business model allows it to capture market share in high-growth industries that are inaccessible to FHB.
Financial Statement Analysis: Historically, WAL's financial performance has been far superior to FHB's, though with more recent volatility. WAL has consistently generated revenue growth in the double digits, driven by strong loan growth, dwarfing FHB's low single-digit pace. WAL's profitability is exceptional, with a pre-2023 crisis ROE often exceeding 20% and an ROA over 1.5%, compared to FHB's 13% ROE and 1.1% ROA. A higher ROA means the bank is more efficient at using its assets to generate earnings. WAL's efficiency ratio is also best-in-class, frequently below 40% (vs. FHB's 62%). However, WAL's balance sheet carries more risk; its loan-to-deposit ratio has been high, sometimes approaching 95%, and its deposit base proved less stable during the 2023 stress period. FHB has a much stickier, low-cost deposit base. Overall Financials winner: WAL, for its vastly superior historical profitability and efficiency, though this comes with the significant caveat of higher balance sheet risk.
Past Performance: WAL's long-term performance has been stellar, albeit volatile. Its 5-year revenue and EPS CAGRs before the recent crisis were both north of 20%, completely eclipsing FHB's 2%. This resulted in a total shareholder return for WAL that was among the best in the banking sector for many years. However, this performance came with much higher risk. WAL experienced a maximum drawdown of over 70% during the March 2023 crisis, showcasing its volatility (beta often >1.5). FHB's stock has been a much steadier, low-drawdown performer. In terms of margin trend, WAL had successfully expanded its NIM for years prior to 2023. Overall Past Performance winner: WAL, as its phenomenal long-term returns for shareholders have, despite recent turmoil, massively outweighed FHB's slow and steady results.
Future Growth: WAL's future growth hinges on rebuilding confidence in its deposit base and continuing to penetrate its high-growth commercial niches. Its presence in vibrant markets like Arizona and California provides a strong tailwind. The bank's guidance points to a normalization of its business and a return to strong loan growth. FHB's growth is tied to the Hawaiian economy. WAL has a clear edge in potential revenue opportunities and has a proven model for taking market share. The main risk is execution and avoiding the funding pressures that plagued it in 2023. Overall Growth outlook winner: WAL, due to its exposure to faster-growing economies and specialized industries, providing a much higher ceiling for expansion.
Fair Value: The 2023 crisis significantly re-rated WAL's stock, making its valuation compelling if one believes in its recovery. WAL now trades at a P/E ratio of 7.5x and a P/TBV of 1.3x. This is a steep discount to FHB's 11.5x P/E and 1.8x P/TBV. WAL's dividend yield is lower at 2.5%, as it retains more capital for growth. Quality vs. price: WAL offers potentially superior quality (in terms of its business model's profitability) at a much lower price, but this comes with significantly higher perceived risk. For investors with a higher risk tolerance, WAL presents a classic value opportunity. Overall better value today: WAL, as its current valuation appears to overly discount its long-term earnings power and best-in-class operational efficiency.
Winner: WAL over FHB. This verdict is for investors with a higher risk tolerance seeking capital appreciation. WAL's primary strength is its high-octane business model focused on specialized, high-growth commercial lending, which has historically generated elite levels of profitability (ROE >20%) and efficiency (ratio <40%). Its notable weakness, exposed in 2023, is a less stable deposit base and higher sensitivity to market sentiment. The primary risk is a repeat of funding pressures or a downturn in its concentrated loan book. FHB is a much safer, more stable bank, but WAL's deeply discounted valuation and potential for a return to high growth offer a far more compelling risk/reward proposition.
Zions Bancorporation (ZION) is a large, diversified regional bank with operations across 11 western states, including fast-growing markets like Utah, Arizona, and Texas. This geographic diversification contrasts with FHB's concentration in Hawaii. ZION's business is a mix of commercial and retail banking, making it a more traditional and economically sensitive bank than FHB. The comparison highlights the trade-off between FHB's stable, concentrated market and ZION's broader, more dynamic but also more competitive operational footprint.
Business & Moat: ZION's moat is built on its established presence and regional scale in several distinct markets. Its brand strength varies by state, but it holds strong market share in its home state of Utah (~20%). FHB's moat is deeper but narrower, with a 36% market share in a single state. Switching costs are moderate for ZION's customers, who have more competitive options than FHB's. ZION's scale is much larger, with assets of nearly $90 billion vs. FHB's $24 billion, providing greater operational leverage. ZION's network effects are spread across the Intermountain West. Regulatory barriers are similar for both. Overall Winner: ZION, as its geographic diversification and significantly larger scale provide better resilience against localized economic downturns.
Financial Statement Analysis: ZION's financial profile is generally solid but less profitable than FHB's. ZION's revenue growth is more closely tied to mainland economic activity and has shown more cyclicality. FHB consistently delivers a higher return on equity (ROE), around 13%, compared to ZION's typical 10-11%. This is because FHB's dominant market position allows for a stronger net interest margin (NIM) of 2.9% versus ZION's 2.7%. ZION runs a less efficient operation, with an efficiency ratio often above 65%, compared to FHB's 62%. In terms of balance sheet, ZION's capital ratios are strong (CET1 ~10.5%), but it has a higher concentration in commercial real estate loans, which is a source of investor concern. FHB's balance sheet is considered more conservative. Overall Financials winner: FHB, due to its superior profitability (higher ROE and NIM) and more conservative balance sheet.
Past Performance: Over the last five years, ZION's performance has been more volatile. Its revenue and EPS growth have experienced wider swings, reflecting its greater sensitivity to interest rates and the business cycle. Its 5-year revenue CAGR of 3% is slightly ahead of FHB's 2%, but its earnings have been less consistent. Total shareholder return (TSR) for ZION has been lackluster and has underperformed FHB over several periods due to concerns about its bond portfolio and CRE exposure. Risk metrics show ZION is a more volatile stock, with a beta around 1.4 compared to FHB's 0.9. FHB has offered a much smoother ride with less severe drawdowns. Overall Past Performance winner: FHB, as it has provided more consistent returns with significantly lower risk.
Future Growth: ZION's growth is linked to the economic expansion of the fast-growing states in which it operates, giving it a higher potential growth ceiling than FHB. Key drivers include business formation in states like Utah and Arizona and its investments in technology to improve its efficiency. However, it faces intense competition in these markets. FHB's growth is slower but more predictable. ZION has a clear edge in potential loan demand from its dynamic markets, but the risk is that its lagging efficiency prevents it from fully capitalizing on this opportunity. Management is focused on a tech overhaul to lower its cost base. Overall Growth outlook winner: ZION, because its exposure to some of the fastest-growing economies in the U.S. provides a stronger macro tailwind for long-term growth, despite competitive pressures.
Fair Value: ZION typically trades at a discount to reflect its lower profitability and higher perceived risk. Its current P/E ratio is around 10.0x, and its P/TBV is 1.1x. This is significantly cheaper than FHB's 11.5x P/E and 1.8x P/TBV. ZION offers a dividend yield of around 4.1%, lower than FHB's 5.0%. Quality vs. price: FHB is the higher-quality bank (more profitable, less risky), but ZION is priced much more cheaply. The discount on ZION may be justified by its execution risk and CRE exposure. Overall better value today: FHB, as its premium valuation is warranted by its superior and more stable profitability, making it a better value proposition on a risk-adjusted basis.
Winner: FHB over ZION. This decision is based on FHB's superior quality and lower-risk profile. FHB's key strength is its fortress-like position in Hawaii, which drives higher profitability (ROE 13% vs. ZION's 11%) and a more stable earnings stream. ZION's main weakness is its subpar efficiency (>65% ratio) and higher-risk loan concentrations, which have historically led to more volatile performance. While ZION has higher growth potential due to its geographic footprint, FHB's consistent execution and more conservative balance sheet make it the more reliable investment. FHB's business model has proven to be a more effective generator of shareholder value over time with less volatility.
Umpqua Holdings Corporation (UMPQ), the parent company of Umpqua Bank, is a prominent West Coast regional bank that prides itself on a unique, customer-centric brand and culture. Following its merger with Columbia Banking System, it has significant scale from Washington to California. This makes it a formidable competitor in a dynamic but crowded market. The comparison with FHB highlights the difference between a bank competing through brand and scale in a broad, competitive region versus one that dominates a smaller, isolated market.
Business & Moat: Umpqua's moat is built on its distinctive brand identity, which positions it as a more modern, customer-friendly alternative to larger national banks. Its brand is a key asset. After its merger, it has achieved significant scale with over $50 billion in assets, more than double FHB's size. It holds a top 10 deposit market share in several key West Coast metropolitan areas. FHB’s moat is a structural advantage in Hawaii (36% market share), while Umpqua’s is a brand and scale advantage in a competitive area. Switching costs are moderate for Umpqua's customers. Overall Winner: FHB, because a structural market duopoly is a stronger and more durable moat than a brand-based advantage in a highly fragmented and competitive market.
Financial Statement Analysis: Umpqua's financial performance is solid but doesn't consistently reach the profitability levels of FHB. Umpqua's revenue growth has been driven by acquisitions, particularly the Columbia merger, making organic comparisons difficult. Its underlying organic growth is in the low-to-mid single digits. Umpqua's return on equity (ROE) is typically around 9-10%, falling short of FHB's 13%. This is partly due to a lower net interest margin (NIM), which hovers around 3.1% but is offset by a higher efficiency ratio, often in the mid-60s (vs. FHB's 62%). A key financial metric is the tangible book value (TBV) per share, which Umpqua has focused on growing post-merger. Both banks are well-capitalized, with CET1 ratios above 11%. Overall Financials winner: FHB, for its consistently superior profitability metrics (ROE, NIM) driven by its stronger market position.
Past Performance: Umpqua's performance record is heavily influenced by M&A activity. The stock's total shareholder return (TSR) has been volatile, with periods of strong performance following successful integrations, but it has generally lagged the broader banking index over a five-year period. Its 5-year revenue CAGR is skewed by acquisitions but is organically around 4%. EPS growth has been lumpy due to merger-related expenses. In contrast, FHB has delivered a much more stable, albeit slower, growth trajectory. On risk, Umpqua’s stock is more volatile (beta ~1.2) than FHB’s (~0.9), reflecting the competitive pressures of its markets and M&A execution risk. Overall Past Performance winner: FHB, as its steady, predictable performance has been more reliable for investors than Umpqua's M&A-driven, volatile path.
Future Growth: Umpqua's future growth depends heavily on successfully integrating Columbia Bank and realizing projected cost savings and revenue synergies. If executed well, this could unlock significant value and improve its efficiency and profitability. This gives it a clear, catalyst-driven path to earnings growth that FHB lacks. Umpqua also operates in several economically vibrant West Coast markets. FHB’s growth is tied to Hawaii. The primary risk for Umpqua is execution risk on the merger integration. Overall Growth outlook winner: Umpqua, as the successful integration of its major acquisition provides a tangible, near-term catalyst for significant earnings accretion and efficiency gains.
Fair Value: Umpqua typically trades at a lower valuation than FHB, reflecting its lower profitability and the risks associated with its competitive markets. Its current P/E ratio is 10.5x, and it trades at a significant discount to its tangible book value, with a P/TBV of 1.0x. This is much cheaper than FHB's 1.8x P/TBV. Umpqua offers a high dividend yield of 4.5%, comparable to FHB's 5.0%. Quality vs. price: FHB is the higher-quality, more profitable bank, but Umpqua is significantly cheaper, especially on a price-to-book basis. The discount suggests the market is skeptical about its post-merger execution. Overall better value today: Umpqua, for investors willing to bet on the merger integration, as the potential for the bank to re-rate closer to its book value presents a compelling value proposition.
Winner: FHB over Umpqua. The verdict favors FHB's quality and consistency over Umpqua's potential turnaround story. FHB's key strength is its highly profitable and stable business model protected by a near-impenetrable moat, evidenced by its 13% ROE. Umpqua's primary weakness is its position in a fiercely competitive market, which has resulted in historically lower profitability (9-10% ROE). While Umpqua has a clear growth catalyst from its recent merger and trades at a cheaper valuation, this comes with significant execution risk. FHB's proven ability to consistently generate high returns for shareholders with lower risk makes it the superior long-term investment.
Comerica Incorporated (CMA) is a major commercial-focused bank with a strong presence in Texas, California, and Michigan. Its business model is heavily tilted towards lending to middle-market companies, making it highly sensitive to business credit cycles and interest rate fluctuations. This contrasts with FHB's more balanced model of consumer and commercial lending in a stable, contained economy. Comparing the two highlights the difference between a cyclical, business-focused bank and a steady, consumer-oriented one.
Business & Moat: Comerica's moat is built on its long-standing relationships with commercial clients in its key markets. Its brand is well-established in the business community. It is a top 25 U.S. bank by asset size, giving it significant scale of over $79 billion. Its moat is based on deep client relationships rather than FHB's structural market dominance (36% deposit share). Switching costs are moderately high for its commercial clients who rely on its treasury management and credit services. However, competition in commercial lending is intense from both large national players and smaller community banks. Overall Winner: FHB, because its structural duopoly in a captive market represents a more durable and defensible moat than Comerica's relationship-based model in a highly competitive commercial lending space.
Financial Statement Analysis: Comerica's financial performance is notably cyclical. During periods of rising interest rates and economic expansion, its profitability soars due to its asset-sensitive balance sheet. In such times, its ROE can climb above 18%, far exceeding FHB's. However, when rates fall or the economy slows, its performance can suffer significantly. Its net interest margin (NIM) is highly variable, recently peaking over 3.7% but capable of falling sharply. FHB's NIM and ROE (~13%) are far more stable. Comerica's efficiency ratio is generally good, often below 60%. Its balance sheet has a higher concentration of non-interest-bearing commercial deposits, which are a cheap source of funding but can be less stable during a crisis than FHB's retail deposits. Overall Financials winner: FHB, as its stability and predictability across different economic cycles are more valuable than Comerica's volatile, boom-and-bust performance.
Past Performance: Comerica's past performance reflects its cyclical nature. Its stock has experienced massive swings, delivering huge returns during economic upswings but suffering deep drawdowns during downturns. Its 5-year total shareholder return has often lagged steadier performers due to this volatility. Revenue and EPS growth have been erratic, closely following the interest rate cycle. FHB's performance has been much less dramatic, with a lower beta (0.9 vs. CMA's 1.3) and smaller drawdowns. For long-term investors, FHB has provided a much smoother and more predictable journey. Overall Past Performance winner: FHB, for delivering more consistent risk-adjusted returns without the extreme volatility inherent in Comerica's business model.
Future Growth: Comerica's growth prospects are tied to the health of its core markets—Texas, California, and Michigan—and the national business investment cycle. Expansion in its Texas market is a key priority. Its growth is highly leveraged to macroeconomic trends. FHB's growth is slower but insulated from mainland business cycles. Comerica has a higher potential growth rate if the economy remains strong, but this comes with significant uncertainty. FHB's path is clearer, albeit more modest. Overall Growth outlook winner: Comerica, because its leverage to the broader U.S. economy and its presence in dynamic markets like Texas give it a higher ceiling for growth if economic conditions are favorable.
Fair Value: Comerica's stock valuation typically reflects its cyclicality, often trading at a discount to the industry. Its current P/E ratio is around 9.5x, and its P/TBV is 1.2x, both cheaper than FHB's 11.5x P/E and 1.8x P/TBV. It offers a very high dividend yield, currently over 5.5%, though its dividend sustainability has been questioned during economic downturns. Quality vs. price: FHB is a higher-quality, more stable bank, while Comerica is a more volatile, cyclical business available at a lower price. The discount is a direct reflection of its higher risk profile. Overall better value today: FHB, as its premium valuation is justified by the stability of its earnings, making it a more reliable investment, especially in an uncertain economic environment.
Winner: FHB over Comerica. This verdict is based on FHB's superior business model stability and more consistent financial performance. FHB’s core strength lies in its insulated market, which produces predictable earnings and a steady 13% ROE. Comerica's defining weakness is its extreme sensitivity to interest rates and the business cycle, leading to highly volatile earnings and stock performance. While Comerica offers higher potential upside during economic booms, its unpredictability and higher risk make it less suitable for most long-term investors. FHB's durable moat and consistent returns provide a much more compelling case for reliable wealth creation.
Based on industry classification and performance score:
First Hawaiian, Inc. possesses a powerful and durable competitive moat rooted in its dominant market position in the geographically isolated Hawaiian economy. The bank leverages its extensive branch network and long-standing brand to gather a sticky, low-cost deposit base, which funds a conservative and locally-focused loan portfolio. While its revenue streams are less diversified than some larger mainland banks and its fate is tied to Hawaii's tourism-dependent economy, its market share creates significant barriers to entry for competitors. For investors, FHB represents a mixed takeaway: a highly stable, well-defended business with a strong moat, but one that is geographically concentrated and offers modest growth prospects tied to a single state's economy.
First Hawaiian's reliance on traditional interest income is significant, with its fee-based revenue streams being average for its peer group and not a major differentiator.
While First Hawaiian generates fee income from services like wealth management, card processing, and deposit service charges, it remains heavily dependent on net interest income from loans. In Q1 2024, noninterest income accounted for 23.4% of total revenue, a figure that is IN LINE with the 20-30% average for regional banks but does not represent a particular strength. The fee income is diversified across several sources, which is a positive, but none are large enough to meaningfully offset significant pressure on its net interest margin. Because the bank's core advantage lies in its low-cost deposit franchise that fuels lending, its fee income streams appear more supplementary than strategic. This reliance on spread-based income makes its earnings more sensitive to interest rate fluctuations than a bank with a more robust fee-generating business.
The bank maintains a well-diversified deposit base across retail and commercial customers, with minimal reliance on high-risk funding sources.
First Hawaiian’s deposit base is granular and well-diversified, mitigating concentration risk. The bank serves a broad mix of consumers, small businesses, and larger commercial clients within its geographic footprint. Critically, it has very low exposure to volatile funding types; brokered deposits, which are sourced from third-party brokers and are known to be less stable, represent a negligible portion of its funding mix. While specific percentages for retail versus business deposits are not always disclosed, the low level of uninsured deposits and the nature of its community-focused business model suggest a healthy balance. This diversification, coupled with its market dominance, ensures a stable funding profile that is not overly reliant on a few large depositors or wholesale funding markets, which is a significant strength compared to banks that have higher concentrations.
The bank's true niche is its deep expertise and dominant position within the unique Hawaiian economy, allowing it to underwrite local risks more effectively than any outside competitor.
First Hawaiian doesn't focus on a narrow product niche like SBA or agriculture lending on a national scale; instead, its entire franchise is a geographic niche. The bank's competitive edge comes from its century-plus experience lending to individuals and businesses in Hawaii. Its loan portfolio is a reflection of the local economy, with a balanced split between commercial & industrial (30%), commercial real estate (27%), residential mortgages (30%), and consumer loans (13%). This deep local expertise allows FHB to effectively manage credit risk in an economy driven by unique factors like tourism and military spending. While it may not be a specialized lender in a conventional sense, its unparalleled understanding of its home market represents a powerful and defensible lending franchise that outside competitors cannot easily replicate.
The bank benefits from a remarkably stable and low-cost deposit base, a key strength that lowers its funding costs and enhances margin stability.
First Hawaiian excels at attracting and retaining low-cost, loyal deposits. As of Q1 2024, noninterest-bearing deposits constituted 26% of its total deposits. While this figure is largely IN LINE with the regional banking average of 20-25%, its overall cost of total deposits stood at a competitive 1.03% during a period of rapidly rising rates. More importantly, its percentage of uninsured deposits was approximately 34% at the end of 2023, a figure favorably BELOW the 40-50% or higher levels seen at many peer banks during the 2023 banking crisis. This indicates a granular and less flighty retail and small business depositor base. This sticky funding provides a durable competitive advantage by keeping funding costs down and insulating the bank from the liquidity pressures that affect competitors with more dependence on higher-cost or less stable funding sources.
First Hawaiian's dense and highly productive branch network provides a dominant physical presence in its core market, translating into an exceptional ability to gather deposits.
First Hawaiian’s primary competitive advantage is its scale within the contained market of Hawaii. With 52 branches in the state, the bank has a formidable physical footprint that is difficult and costly for competitors to replicate. This network's true strength is its productivity; as of early 2024, the bank held over $421 million in deposits per branch, a figure that is substantially ABOVE the sub-industry average for regional banks, which is often under $200 million. This high productivity demonstrates operating leverage and an entrenched customer base. Combined with its main competitor, Bank of Hawaii, FHB forms a duopoly that controls the vast majority of the state's banking assets and deposits (approximately 40% market share for FHB alone). This local scale acts as a significant barrier to entry, solidifying its market position and pricing power.
First Hawaiian's recent financial statements present a mixed but generally stable picture. The bank demonstrates solid profitability, with net interest income growing to $169.3 million in the latest quarter and a healthy return on equity around 10.9%. Its standout strength is a very conservative loan-to-deposit ratio of 67.4%, indicating excellent liquidity. However, a significant concern is the $388 million in unrealized losses on its investment portfolio, which materially reduces its tangible book value. For investors, the takeaway is mixed: the bank's core operations are efficient and liquid, but its balance sheet carries notable sensitivity to interest rate fluctuations.
The bank possesses an exceptionally strong liquidity position due to its very low loan-to-deposit ratio, which helps offset an average tangible capital level.
First Hawaiian's key strength lies in its liquidity. The bank's loans-to-deposits ratio was 67.4% in the most recent quarter ($13.96 billion in net loans vs. $20.73 billion in deposits). This is exceptionally strong, as many regional banks operate with ratios of 80% or higher. A low ratio indicates that the bank is funded by a large base of stable customer deposits rather than more volatile wholesale funding, providing a substantial buffer to handle economic stress or unexpected withdrawals.
On the capital side, the bank's position is adequate but not as robust. Its tangible common equity to total assets ratio is 7.21% ($1.74 billion / $24.1 billion). While this is generally considered an acceptable level, it doesn't provide a massive cushion for losses, especially considering the unrealized losses discussed previously. While regulatory capital ratios like CET1 were not provided, the phenomenal liquidity position provides significant financial flexibility and stability, making the overall buffer sufficient.
The bank's current credit losses appear very well-controlled, reflected in minimal provisions, though its reserve coverage for potential future losses is modest.
First Hawaiian appears to be managing its credit risk effectively. The provision for credit losses—money set aside for expected bad loans—has been stable and low at just $4.5 million for each of the last two quarters. This is a very small amount relative to its pre-tax income of $96.15 million, suggesting management is confident about the quality of its loan portfolio and does not foresee a significant increase in defaults.
The bank's total Allowance for Credit Losses stands at $165.3 million, which is 1.17% of its gross loans ($14.13 billion). This reserve level is adequate but not overly conservative when compared to industry peers, who often maintain reserves between 1.2% and 1.5%. Without data on nonperforming loans, it is difficult to judge the sufficiency of this reserve definitively. However, based on the low current provisions, credit quality is not an immediate concern.
The bank's tangible equity is significantly reduced by unrealized losses on its investment securities, creating a major vulnerability to changes in interest rates.
First Hawaiian's balance sheet shows significant sensitivity to interest rate movements. The primary concern is the Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income (AOCI), which currently stands at a negative -$388.15 million. This figure represents after-tax 'paper' losses on the bank's securities portfolio caused by rising rates. When compared to the bank's tangible common equity of $1,738 million, these unrealized losses represent over 22% of the tangible capital base. This is a substantial erosion of value.
While these losses are only realized if the securities are sold, such a large negative balance reduces the bank's financial flexibility and highlights the risk within its $7.2 billion investment portfolio. A high exposure to fixed-rate securities in a rising-rate environment can pressure a bank's capital. This level of unrealized loss creates a meaningful headwind and makes the bank's true capital position weaker than headline numbers suggest, posing a risk to investors if interest rates remain elevated or rise further.
The bank's core earnings power is solid, demonstrated by healthy `8.06%` year-over-year growth in net interest income.
Net interest income (NII) is the lifeblood of a bank, representing the difference between interest earned on loans and interest paid on deposits. First Hawaiian is performing well in this critical area, reporting NII of $169.3 million in its latest quarter. This marks a strong 8.06% increase compared to the same period last year, indicating that the bank is successfully navigating the current interest rate environment.
This growth in NII suggests that the bank is able to increase the rates on its loans and investments faster than its funding costs on deposits are rising. While the specific Net Interest Margin (NIM) percentage is not provided, the positive and robust growth in NII is a clear sign of a healthy core operation. This ability to protect and grow its primary earnings stream is a fundamental strength for the bank.
The bank has demonstrated excellent cost discipline, with its efficiency ratio improving to a strong `55.5%`, helping to drive profitability.
First Hawaiian excels at managing its operating costs. A key measure for banks is the efficiency ratio, which shows how much it costs to generate one dollar of revenue (a lower percentage is better). The bank's efficiency ratio has shown marked improvement, falling from 61.9% for the full year 2024 to an impressive 55.5% in the most recent quarter. This is a strong result, as ratios below 60% are typically considered very efficient for regional banks.
This improvement is driven by stable expense management. Total noninterest expense was $125.74 million in the last quarter, nearly flat compared to the prior quarter. By keeping a tight rein on costs while revenues are growing, the bank is able to convert more of its income into profit for shareholders. This operational discipline is a clear strength and a key component of its consistent earnings.
First Hawaiian's past performance has been characterized by stability in credit but weakness in growth and profitability. The bank has consistently paid a flat dividend of $1.04 per share, but earnings per share (EPS) have declined from a peak of $2.08 in 2022 to $1.80 in 2024. A key weakness is the deteriorating efficiency ratio, which has worsened from 50.1% to 62.0% over the last five years, indicating poor cost control compared to peers. While its conservative approach has kept loan losses low, the lack of earnings growth and anemic balance sheet expansion present a negative takeaway for investors seeking capital appreciation or dividend growth.
The bank's history shows anemic loan growth and a recent decline in deposits, reflecting its dependence on the slow-growing Hawaiian economy and failing to demonstrate market share gains.
Over the past five years, First Hawaiian's balance sheet growth has been very slow. Gross loans increased from $13.3 billion in FY2020 to $14.4 billion in FY2024, a compound annual growth rate of just over 2%. This pace barely keeps up with inflation and reflects limited expansion opportunities. More concerning is the deposit trend. After peaking at $21.8 billion in FY2021 amid pandemic-era stimulus, total deposits have fallen to $20.3 billion by FY2024, indicating potential outflows as customers seek higher yields elsewhere.
While the bank's loan-to-deposit ratio remains conservative, rising from 69.1% to 70.9% over the period, this is more a function of shrinking deposits than strong loan demand. A history of such sluggish growth in core banking activities suggests the bank is struggling to expand its business organically. This performance lags more dynamic regional peers operating in faster-growing economies and is a clear indicator of a stagnant business.
The bank's operational efficiency has steadily deteriorated over the past five years, a significant negative trend that has weighed on profitability.
While First Hawaiian's net interest income (NII) benefited from the rising rate environment through 2023, its cost control has been poor. The bank's efficiency ratio, which measures the cost to generate a dollar of revenue, has worsened significantly, rising from an excellent 50.1% in FY2020 to a mediocre 62.0% in FY2024. This steady increase in the ratio indicates that expense growth is outpacing revenue growth, a fundamental sign of operational weakness.
This performance compares unfavorably to its direct competitor, Bank of Hawaii, and is substantially worse than best-in-class peers like Western Alliance or East West Bancorp, which often operate with efficiency ratios below 45%. While the bank's net interest margin (NIM) has been relatively stable, as noted in competitor comparisons, the inability to manage the expense base has eroded profitability and is a major red flag regarding management's execution. This negative long-term trend makes this a clear failure.
Earnings per share have been volatile and have declined for two consecutive years after peaking in 2022, demonstrating a lack of consistent growth.
First Hawaiian's earnings track record over the last five years has been inconsistent. After bottoming out at $1.43 in FY2020, EPS recovered strongly to $2.06 in FY2021 and peaked at $2.08 in FY2022. However, this momentum reversed, with EPS falling to $1.84 in FY2023 and further to $1.80 in FY2024. This recent downtrend indicates that the bank's profitability is under pressure, likely from rising funding costs and weak revenue growth.
This performance has resulted in a mediocre return on equity (ROE), which averaged approximately 9.9% over the last three fiscal years. This is below the levels of higher-performing peers, which often generate ROEs in the low-to-mid teens. A history of volatile earnings and a clear negative trend in recent years fails to demonstrate the consistent execution and resilience that investors look for in a stable banking institution.
The bank has a strong track record of disciplined underwriting, as evidenced by its stable loan loss reserves and modest credit provisions, reflecting a conservative risk management culture.
First Hawaiian has demonstrated resilience in its credit performance. After a significant provision for loan losses of $121.7 million in 2020 due to the pandemic, the bank was able to release $39 million in reserves in 2021 as economic conditions improved. In the subsequent years (FY2022-FY2024), provisions have remained modest, indicating that credit quality within the loan portfolio is stable. This suggests prudent underwriting standards and effective risk management.
The bank's allowance for loan losses as a percentage of gross loans has remained healthy, settling around 1.1% in FY2024 after normalizing from a peak of 1.57% in 2020. This level of reserves appears adequate for a bank with its risk profile. Maintaining stable credit metrics through economic cycles is a key strength and provides a solid foundation, even if overall growth is lacking. This conservative approach is a clear positive for risk-averse investors.
The bank has a record of providing a consistent quarterly dividend, but its complete lack of dividend growth over the past five years is a major weakness for income-oriented investors.
First Hawaiian has maintained a very stable dividend per share of $1.04 annually for the last five fiscal years (FY2020-FY2024). This consistency provides a reliable income stream, with the payout ratio remaining manageable, ranging from 49.9% to 72.7% in the period. However, the 5-year dividend CAGR is 0%, which is unattractive for investors seeking growing income streams to combat inflation. While the company has engaged in share repurchases, they have been modest, with the diluted share count only decreasing from 130 million in 2020 to 128 million in 2024.
The lack of dividend growth, a key component of total return for bank stocks, signals a lack of confidence in sustained earnings growth. While the capital return program is stable, it is not compelling. This track record of a stagnant dividend payment ultimately fails to reward long-term shareholders with a growing return.
First Hawaiian's future growth outlook is modest and intrinsically linked to the slow, stable expansion of the Hawaiian economy. The bank's dominant market position provides a solid foundation, but its geographic concentration is a significant headwind, limiting opportunities for expansion compared to mainland peers. Key growth drivers will be incremental gains in fee income and disciplined capital management through share buybacks. However, with limited catalysts for accelerated loan demand and an average reliance on fee-based services, the overall growth picture is muted. The investor takeaway is mixed: FHB offers stability and a secure dividend, but investors seeking strong top-line growth should look elsewhere.
Loan growth is expected to be slow and steady, mirroring the modest pace of the Hawaiian economy, with no significant catalysts for acceleration on the horizon.
Management guidance and economic forecasts for Hawaii suggest a muted outlook for loan growth. The bank has not provided specific loan growth guidance, but peers are guiding to low-single-digit growth, and FHB is unlikely to be an exception. Growth in its commercial portfolio is tied to local business investment, while the residential mortgage market is constrained by high property values and elevated interest rates. Unfunded commitments, a proxy for the loan pipeline, have been stable but not indicative of a surge in future lending. Given that Hawaii's GDP growth is projected to be in the 1.5-2.0% range, it is reasonable to expect FHB's loan portfolio to expand at a similar, unexceptional pace. This slow-growth profile, while stable, does not meet the criteria for a 'Pass' in a future growth analysis.
With M&A opportunities severely limited by its dominant market share, FHB's primary tool for enhancing shareholder value is through share buybacks, for which it maintains an active program.
First Hawaiian's growth via mergers and acquisitions is highly constrained. Given its roughly 40% deposit market share in Hawaii, any significant in-market acquisition would likely face insurmountable regulatory hurdles. Consequently, the bank's primary method for deploying excess capital to drive earnings per share (EPS) growth is through dividends and share repurchases. The company has a history of consistent buybacks and, as of early 2024, had remaining authorization under its repurchase program. While buybacks can effectively boost EPS, they do not generate fundamental revenue growth. The bank's Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) ratio remains robust, providing ample capacity for capital returns. This factor receives a 'Pass' because the bank has a clear and logical capital return strategy that serves as its main lever for shareholder value creation, even if it's not top-line growth.
The bank has an efficient physical branch network but has not provided clear, forward-looking targets for digital user growth or cost savings, obscuring its future optimization strategy.
First Hawaiian operates a highly productive branch network, boasting over $400 million in deposits per branch, far exceeding the industry average. While this physical presence is a core strength, future efficiency gains will depend on digital adoption and network optimization. The company has not announced specific, quantifiable targets for branch closures, digital user growth, or associated cost savings. Without a clear public roadmap for how it plans to leverage technology to streamline operations or enhance customer acquisition digitally, investors are left to assume an incremental, rather than transformative, approach. This lack of explicit targets makes it difficult to underwrite a story of significant operating leverage improvement, leading to a 'Fail' rating for this growth-oriented factor.
The bank faces industry-wide pressure on its net interest margin as deposit costs continue to rise, and it has not provided guidance suggesting it can meaningfully buck this trend.
Like most banks, First Hawaiian faces headwinds to its net interest margin (NIM). The cost of deposits has been rising across the industry as customers shift funds to higher-yielding accounts and competition for deposits intensifies. While a portion of FHB's loan portfolio is variable-rate, allowing asset yields to reprice higher, this is unlikely to fully offset the escalating funding costs in the current environment. Management has not provided explicit forward guidance for NIM, but the broader industry trend is one of compression or, at best, stabilization at lower levels than the recent past. Without a clear path to NIM expansion, a key driver of bank profitability faces pressure, warranting a 'Fail' on this factor.
The bank's reliance on traditional interest income remains high, and it has not articulated a clear strategy or specific targets for meaningful growth in its fee-based businesses.
First Hawaiian's noninterest income hovers around 23% of total revenue, a figure that is merely average for its peer group. This income stream, derived from wealth management, card fees, and service charges, provides some diversification but is not a primary growth engine. Management has not provided specific growth targets for wealth management assets under management, interchange volume, or overall noninterest income. Without a stated ambition to significantly grow this revenue source, it is unlikely to offset potential weakness in net interest income. For a bank with limited geographic growth options, expanding fee-based services is a critical lever for future performance, and the absence of a clear plan or targets results in a 'Fail' for this factor.
First Hawaiian, Inc. (FHB) appears to be fairly valued, trading at a P/E ratio of 12.1, which is slightly above its regional banking peers. The company's primary strength is its strong and sustainable dividend yield of 4.20%, supported by a reasonable payout ratio. However, its valuation multiples, such as Price to Tangible Book Value, do not suggest a significant discount compared to the industry. The overall takeaway for investors is neutral; while the income potential is attractive, the stock does not appear undervalued and offers limited near-term upside.
The stock trades at a reasonable premium to its tangible book value, justified by its solid profitability metrics like ROE.
Price to Tangible Book Value (P/TBV) is a critical valuation metric for banks. FHB's P/TBV is calculated to be 1.76 based on the current price of $24.78 and a Tangible Book Value Per Share of $14.05. While a P/TBV above 1.0 means investors are paying more than the stated balance sheet value of the bank's tangible assets, this premium is warranted by the bank's ability to generate profits from that asset base. FHB's Return on Equity (ROE) of 10.88% demonstrates solid profitability. This level of return is adequate to justify the premium over tangible book value, especially as it aligns with the global banking sector's average ROE.
The company's Price-to-Book ratio of 1.12 is well-aligned with its Return on Equity of 10.88%, suggesting the market is pricing its profitability appropriately.
A key test for bank valuation is whether the market price appropriately reflects the bank's profitability. FHB’s Return on Equity (ROE) is 10.88%, a solid figure indicating efficient use of shareholder capital. This ROE supports a Price-to-Book (P/B) ratio above 1.0. The current P/B ratio is 1.12, suggesting a modest premium that is justified by its earnings power. For comparison, the global banking sector's average ROE in 2025 is around 11.5%, placing FHB right in line with its peers. With the 10-Year Treasury yield hovering around 4.0%, FHB’s earnings yield (the inverse of its P/E ratio) of 8.26% offers a healthy risk premium, making the alignment between its ROE and P/B ratio appear rational and fair.
The stock's P/E ratio is in line with its peers, but its earnings growth appears modest, suggesting the valuation is not supported by strong forward momentum.
First Hawaiian’s Trailing Twelve Month (TTM) P/E ratio of 12.1 is slightly above the industry average of 11.74 for regional banks. The forward P/E of 11.73 suggests very modest near-term EPS growth expectations. While recent quarterly EPS growth has been strong (22.92% in Q3 2025), the latest full-year EPS growth was negative at -2.72% (FY 2024), indicating potential volatility in earnings. The low implied growth makes the current P/E multiple look full rather than cheap. For a stock to be undervalued based on this metric, investors would want to see a lower P/E ratio coupled with higher anticipated growth.
First Hawaiian offers a strong and sustainable dividend combined with share repurchases, resulting in an attractive total yield for shareholders.
The company provides a robust income stream to investors. Its dividend yield of 4.20% is attractive, especially when compared to the regional bank average of approximately 3.31%. This high yield is supported by a moderate dividend payout ratio of 50.78%, which signifies that the dividend is well-covered by earnings and is likely sustainable. Furthermore, FHB is actively returning capital to shareholders through buybacks, with a 1.34% buyback yield. This brings the total shareholder yield to a compelling 5.54%. The consistent reduction in shares outstanding, down -2.75% in the latest quarter, further enhances earnings per share, benefiting long-term investors.
While the dividend yield is superior, FHB's valuation multiples (P/E and P/TBV) do not show a clear discount compared to its regional banking peers.
When compared to the regional banking sector, First Hawaiian presents a mixed valuation picture. Its most attractive feature is its dividend yield of 4.20%, which is significantly higher than the peer average of around 3.31%. However, its TTM P/E ratio of 12.1 is slightly higher than the industry average of 11.74. Its calculated P/TBV of 1.76 is reasonable but doesn't scream undervaluation when some peers may trade at lower multiples. The stock's beta of 0.82 indicates lower volatility than the broader market, which is a positive trait for conservative investors. Overall, the stock does not appear to be trading at a compelling discount to its peers across multiple metrics.
First Hawaiian's most significant risk is its deep geographic concentration. The bank's fortunes are intrinsically linked to the economy of Hawaii, which is dominated by tourism and U.S. military spending. A global economic downturn, natural disaster, or a shift in military strategy could severely impact local employment and property values, leading to weaker loan demand and a rise in credit defaults. This reliance on a single, cyclical regional economy provides less diversification than its mainland peers. Moreover, the bank's profitability is highly sensitive to macroeconomic shifts, particularly interest rates. A prolonged period of high interest rates increases funding costs as depositors demand higher yields, compressing the bank's net interest margin (NIM), which fell to 2.53% in the first quarter of 2024 from 3.15% a year prior. Conversely, rapid rate cuts could also harm earnings if loan yields reprice downward faster than deposit costs.
The banking industry is undergoing significant competitive and regulatory changes that pose a threat to regional players like First Hawaiian. Large national banks, such as Bank of America, have a substantial presence in Hawaii and can leverage superior scale, marketing budgets, and technology platforms to attract customers. Simultaneously, financial technology (fintech) companies are chipping away at profitable business lines like payments, consumer lending, and wealth management, forcing traditional banks to increase technology spending to remain relevant. On the regulatory front, banks face ever-increasing compliance costs and scrutiny. Potential new capital requirements, such as the proposed 'Basel III Endgame' rules, could force banks to hold more capital, potentially restricting their ability to lend and reducing returns for shareholders.
From a company-specific standpoint, First Hawaiian's balance sheet carries notable concentration risk within its loan portfolio. As of early 2024, commercial real estate (CRE) loans constituted a significant portion of its total loans, at over $5 billion. While the Hawaiian CRE market has unique dynamics, the broader sector faces headwinds from remote work trends and higher borrowing costs, creating a vulnerability that requires careful monitoring. While the bank has historically maintained a stable, low-cost deposit base thanks to its leading market share, the 2023 regional banking crisis highlighted the risk of deposit outflows. Investors should continue to watch the bank's loan-to-deposit ratio and the level of uninsured deposits to ensure its funding remains secure and resilient during periods of market stress.
Click a section to jump