BANK OF HAWAII CORP
10-Ks and 10-Qs
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use these links to rapidly review the document
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
SCHEDULE 14A
Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )
|
Filed by the Registrant
x
|
|
|
Filed by a Party other than the Registrant
o
|
|
|
Check the appropriate box:
|
|
|
o
|
Preliminary Proxy Statement
|
|
o
|
Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))
|
|
x
|
Definitive Proxy Statement
|
|
o
|
Definitive Additional Materials
|
|
o
|
Soliciting Material under §240.14a-12
|
|
Bank of Hawaii Corporation
|
||
|
(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)
|
||
|
(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)
|
||
|
Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):
|
||
|
x
|
No fee required.
|
|
|
o
|
Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(1) and 0-11.
|
|
|
(1)
|
Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:
|
|
|
(2)
|
Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:
|
|
|
(3)
|
Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):
|
|
|
(4)
|
Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:
|
|
|
(5)
|
Total fee paid:
|
|
|
o
|
Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.
|
|
|
o
|
Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.
|
|
|
(1)
|
Amount Previously Paid:
|
|
|
(2)
|
Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:
|
|
|
(3)
|
Filing Party:
|
|
|
(4)
|
Date Filed:
|
|
Your VOTE is important!
Notice of 2013
Annual Meeting of Shareholders
and Proxy Statement
Meeting Date: April 26, 2013
Bank of Hawaii Corporation
130 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Bank of Hawaii Corporation
130 Merchant Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
March 15, 2013
Dear Shareholder:
The 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Bank of Hawaii Corporation will be held on Friday, April 26, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. on the Fifth Floor of the Bank of Hawaii Building, 111 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii. Each shareholder may be asked to present valid picture identification. Shareholders holding stock in brokerage accounts will need to bring a copy of a brokerage statement reflecting stock ownership as of the record date.
The Notice of Meeting and Proxy Statement accompanying this letter describe the business we will consider and vote upon at the meeting. A report to shareholders on the affairs of Bank of Hawaii Corporation also will be given and shareholders will have the opportunity to discuss matters of interest concerning the Company.
For reasons explained in the accompanying Proxy Statement, the Board of Directors recommends that you vote FOR Proposal 1: Election of Directors, FOR Proposal 2: Advisory Vote on Executive Compensation, and FOR Proposal 3: Ratification of Selection of an Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm.
Your vote is very important.
Please complete, sign, date and return the enclosed proxy card and mail it promptly in the enclosed postage-paid return envelope, even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting. If you wish to do so, your proxy may be revoked at any time before voting occurs at the Annual Meeting. You may also vote and change your vote by telephone or electronically via the Internet until 1:00 a.m. Central Time, April 26, 2013.
On behalf of the Board of Directors, thank you for your cooperation and support.
|
Sincerely,
|
|
|
|
|
Peter S. Ho
Chairman of the Board, President, and
Chief Executive Officer |
|
NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS
To be held April 26, 2013
To Our Shareholders:
The Annual Meeting of Shareholders of Bank of Hawaii Corporation will be held on Friday, April 26, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. on the Fifth Floor of the Bank of Hawaii Building, 111 South King Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, for the following purposes:
|
1.
|
To elect fourteen persons to serve as directors of the Company for a term of one year each.
|
|
2.
|
To hold an advisory vote on executive compensation.
|
|
3.
|
To ratify the selection of an independent registered public accounting firm.
|
|
4.
|
To transact any other business that may be properly brought before the meeting.
|
Shareholders of record of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock (NYSE: BOH) at the close of business on February 28, 2013 are entitled to attend the meeting and vote on the business brought before it.
We look forward to seeing you at the meeting. However, if you cannot attend the meeting, your shares may still be voted by telephone or electronically via the Internet, or you may complete, sign, date, and return the enclosed proxy card in the enclosed postage-paid return envelope.
|
By Order of the Board of Directors,
|
|
|
|
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
|
|
Vice Chairman and Corporate Secretary
|
|
|
Bank of Hawaii Corporation
|
|
Honolulu, Hawaii
Dated: March 15, 2013
|
IMPORTANT
|
|
Please sign and return the enclosed proxy card or vote by telephone or on the Internet as promptly as possible. This will save the expense of a supplementary solicitation.
|
|
Thank you for acting promptly.
|
Important Notice Regarding the Availability of Proxy Materials
for the Annual Meeting of Shareholders to be Held on April 26, 2013.
The Proxy Statement and the Bank of Hawaii Corporation 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K to Shareholders for the year ended December 31, 2012 are available at www.edocumentview.com/boh. We encourage you to access and review all of the information in the proxy materials before voting.
BANK OF HAWAII CORPORATION
PROXY STATEMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
Page
|
|
PROXY STATEMENT
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Bank of Hawaii Corporation (the “Company”) is soliciting the enclosed proxy for the Company's 2013 Annual Meeting of Shareholders. The proxy statement, proxy card, and the Company's Annual Report to Shareholders and Annual Report on Form 10-K are being distributed to the Company's shareholders on or about March 15, 2013.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE PROXY MATERIALS AND THE ANNUAL MEETING
|
Q:
|
What is a proxy?
|
|
A:
|
A proxy is your legal designation of another person to vote the shares you own. That other person that you designate is called a proxy. If you designate someone as your proxy in a written document, that document also is called a proxy or a proxy card. Proxies are required to vote your shares in the manner you instruct.
|
|
Q:
|
What am I voting on?
|
|
A:
|
You are voting on the election of directors, ratification of the selection of an independent registered public accounting firm, and, on an advisory and non-binding basis, on the Company's executive compensation as described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis and related tables, as well as any other business that may be properly brought before the meeting.
|
|
Q:
|
Who may vote at the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
Shareholders of record of Bank of Hawaii Corporation's common stock, par value $0.01 per share, as of the close of business on February 28, 2013 (the “Record Date”) are entitled to attend and vote at the annual meeting. Each share of common stock is entitled to one vote. On the Record Date, there were 44,852,081 shares of common stock issued and outstanding.
|
|
Q:
|
How many votes do we need to hold the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
The holders of at least one-third of the outstanding common stock on the Record Date entitled to vote at the annual meeting must be present to conduct business. That amount is called a
quorum
. Shares are counted as present at the meeting if a shareholder entitled to vote is present and votes at the meeting, has submitted a properly signed proxy, or has properly voted by telephone or via the Internet. We also count abstentions and broker non-votes as present for purposes of determining a quorum.
|
|
Q:
|
What shares can I vote?
|
|
A:
|
You may vote all shares you own on the Record Date.
|
|
Q:
|
Why did I receive a one-page notice (the “Notice”) in the mail regarding the Internet availability of proxy materials this year instead of a full set of proxy materials?
|
|
A:
|
The rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) allow companies to furnish proxy materials by providing access to such documents on the Internet instead of mailing a printed copy of proxy materials to each shareholder of record. Shareholders who previously requested to receive printed copies of proxy materials by mail will continue to receive them by mail. Shareholders who did not indicate a preference last year are receiving the Notice this year. The Notice provides instructions on how to access and review all of the proxy materials and how to submit your proxy on the Internet. If you would like to receive a printed or e-mail copy of the proxy materials, please follow the instructions for requesting such materials in the Notice.
|
1
|
Q:
|
Why am I being asked to vote on executive compensation?
|
|
A:
|
In 2010, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) was enacted, requiring that public company shareholders be provided with a general advisory vote to approve the compensation paid to named executive officers. This non-binding vote must occur annually, biannually, or triennially. At the Annual Meeting of Shareholders in 2011, our shareholders strongly supported an annual vote on executive compensation and, in light of that preference, the Board determined to hold the advisory vote annually until next determined in 2017 or earlier.
|
|
Q:
|
How can I vote my shares in person at the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
If you are a shareholder of record, you can attend the annual meeting and vote in person the shares you hold directly in your name as the shareholder of record. If you choose to do that, please bring the enclosed proxy card or notice, admission ticket, and proof of identification. If you hold your shares as a beneficial owner, you must vote your shares through your broker or other nominee.
|
Even if you plan to attend the annual meeting, we recommend you also submit your proxy so your vote will be counted if you later decide not to attend the annual meeting.
|
Q:
|
How can I vote my shares without attending the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
You may vote without attending the annual meeting. If you hold your shares as the shareholder of record, you may instruct the proxies how to vote your shares by mail, telephone, or the Internet. If your shares are held by a broker or other nominee, you will receive instructions that you must follow to have your shares voted. Please refer to the summary instructions below and those on your proxy card, or, for shares held in street name, the voting instruction card sent by your broker or nominee.
|
Mail.
You may mail your proxy by signing your proxy card or, for shares held in street name, the voting instruction card included by your broker or nominee, and mailing it in the enclosed, postage-paid return envelope. If you provide specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted as you instruct. If you sign and return a proxy card without giving specific voting instructions, your shares will be voted as recommended by the Board.
Telephone.
If you live in the United States, you may submit your proxy by following the “Vote by Telephone” instructions on the proxy card.
Internet.
If you have Internet access, you may submit your proxy by following the “Vote by Internet” instructions on your proxy card.
|
Q:
|
May I change my vote?
|
|
A:
|
Yes. You may change your proxy instructions any time before the vote at the annual meeting. For shares you hold as shareholder of record, you may change your vote by providing notice to the Corporate Secretary, granting a new proxy with a later date or by attending the annual meeting and voting in person. Attendance at the annual meeting will not cause your previously granted proxy to be revoked unless you also vote at the meeting. If you voted by telephone or via the Internet, you may change your vote until 1:00 a.m. Central Time, April 26, 2013. For shares you hold as beneficial owner, you may change your vote by submitting new voting instructions to your broker or nominee.
|
|
Q:
|
What is a broker non-vote?
|
|
A:
|
The NYSE allows its member-brokers to vote shares held by them for their customers on matters the NYSE determines are routine, even though the brokers have not received voting instructions from their customers. The NYSE currently considers only the proposal to ratify our selection of an independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal 3) as a routine matter. Your broker, therefore, may vote your shares in its discretion on this routine matter if you do not instruct your broker how to vote. If the NYSE does not consider a matter routine, then your broker is prohibited from voting your shares on the matter unless you have given voting instructions on that matter to your broker. Therefore, your broker will need to return a proxy card without voting on these non-routine matters if you do not give voting instructions with respect to these matters. This is referred to as a "broker non-vote." The NYSE does not consider the election of directors (Proposal 1) and the advisory vote on executive compensation
|
2
(Proposal 2) to be routine matters, so your broker may not vote on these matters in its discretion. It is important, therefore, that you provide instructions to your broker if your shares are held by a broker so that your vote with respect to these non-routine matters is counted.
Q: What are the voting procedures?
|
A:
|
The election of directors (Proposal 1) is conducted annually by a plurality of votes cast. This means that the nominees who receive the highest number of affirmative votes will be elected. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not affect the outcome of the vote.
|
The advisory vote on executive compensation (Proposal 2) requires the affirmative vote of a majority of shares present in person or by proxy and entitled to vote at the meeting. Broker non-votes will be treated as not entitled to vote and will not affect the outcome. Abstentions will have the same effect as votes cast against the proposal. For the ratification of selection of an independent registered public accounting firm (Proposal 3), your broker, bank, trustee, or other nominee may exercise its discretion and vote.
|
Q:
|
Is my vote confidential?
|
|
A:
|
Yes. We have procedures to ensure that, regardless of whether shareholders vote by mail, telephone, the Internet, or in person, all proxies, ballots and voting tabulations that identify shareholders are kept permanently confidential, except as disclosure may be required by federal or state law or as expressly permitted by a shareholder. We also have the voting tabulations performed by an independent third party.
|
|
Q:
|
Who will bear the cost of soliciting proxies?
|
|
A:
|
We will pay the cost of this proxy solicitation. In addition to soliciting proxies by mail, we expect that a number of our employees on behalf of the Board will solicit proxies from shareholders, personally, and by telephone, the Internet, facsimile, or other means. None of these employees will receive any additional or special compensation for soliciting proxies. We have retained Georgeson, Inc., 199 Water Street, New York, New York 10038 to assist in the solicitation of proxies for an estimated fee of $10,000 plus reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. We will, upon request, reimburse brokers or other nominees for their reasonable out-of-pocket expenses in forwarding proxy materials to their customers who are beneficial owners and obtaining their voting instructions.
|
|
Q:
|
What does it mean if I get more than one proxy card?
|
|
A:
|
It means your shares are registered differently and are in more than one account. Sign and return all proxy cards or vote each proxy card by telephone or Internet, to ensure all your shares are voted. To provide better shareholder services, we encourage you to have all accounts registered in the same name and address. You may do that by contacting our transfer agent, Computershare Investor Services (1-888-660-5443).
|
|
Q:
|
May I propose actions for consideration at next year's annual meeting of shareholders?
|
|
A:
|
Yes. You may submit proposals for consideration at the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders by presenting your proposal in writing to the Corporate Secretary at 130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 and in accordance with the following schedule and requirements.
|
Proposals To Be Included In The Proxy Statement and Voted On At The Meeting.
Proposals that shareholders wish to have included in the proxy statement for the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be made in accordance with SEC Rule 14a-8. Proposals must be received by the Company's Corporate Secretary on or before November 15, 2013 at the above address.
Proposals To Be Voted On At The Meeting Only.
Under Section 1.12 of the Company's By-Laws, for a shareholder to bring a proposal before the 2014 Annual Meeting, the Company must receive the written proposal no later than 80 days nor earlier than 90 days before the first anniversary of the 2013 annual meeting; in other words, no later than February 5, 2014 and no earlier than January 26, 2014. The proposal also must contain the information required in the By-Laws. If you wish to make one or more nominations for election to the Board, the required information includes, among other things, the written consent of such individual to serve as director and (i) the name, age, business address and, if known, residence address of each nominee, (ii) the principal occupation or employment of each nominee, and (iii) the number of shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock each nominee
3
beneficially owns. These advance notice provisions are separate from the requirements a shareholder must meet to have a proposal included in the proxy statement under SEC rules. By complying with these provisions, a shareholder may present a proposal in person at the meeting, but will not be entitled to have the proposal included in the Company's proxy statement unless they comply with the requirements described in the preceding paragraph. Persons holding proxies solicited by the Board may exercise discretionary authority to vote against such proposals.
|
Q:
|
Where can I find the voting results of the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
We plan to announce preliminary voting results at the annual meeting. We will publish final voting results in a report on Form 8-K within 4 business days of the annual meeting.
|
|
Q:
|
What happens if the meeting is postponed or adjourned?
|
|
A:
|
Your proxy will remain valid and may be voted at the postponed or adjourned meeting. You will still be able to change or revoke your proxy until it is voted.
|
|
Q:
|
Where can I find out more information about the Company before the annual meeting?
|
|
A:
|
You can find more information about the Company on-line at: www.boh.com.
|
4
PROPOSAL 1: ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
The Company’s Certificate of Incorporation requires that the Company’s Board consist of not fewer than three directors and not more than 15 directors. The Board has fixed the number of directors at 14. Each of the 14 directors listed below has been nominated for a one-year term to serve until the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and until their successors are elected and qualified. In the event that any or all of the director nominees are unable to stand for election as director, the Board, upon the recommendation of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, may select different nominees for election as directors.
Certain information with respect to each of the nominees is set forth below, including his or her principal occupation, qualifications, and directorships during the past five years. Each nominee has consented to serve and all nominees, except Raymond P. Vara Jr., are currently serving on the Company’s Board. The nominees were each recommended to the Board by the Company’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee whose goal is to assemble a board that operates cohesively, encourages candid communication and discussion, and focuses on activities that help the Company maximize shareholder value. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee also looks at the individual strengths of directors, their ability to contribute to the board, and whether their skills and experience complement those of the other directors. A more detailed discussion on the nomination process and the criteria the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee considers in their evaluation of director candidates is found in the Corporate Governance section which begins on page 13.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” each of the nominees.
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
S. Haunani Apoliona;
63; 2004 |
Trustee, Office of Hawaiian Affairs (“OHA”) (entity established by the Constitution of the State of Hawaii to improve the conditions and protect the entitlements of Native Hawaiians). Ms. Apoliona was elected OHA Trustee in 1996, and was re-elected to her 5th four-year term in 2012. Ms. Apoliona has dedicated more than 30 years working with and on behalf of Native Hawaiians. As Chairman of the OHA Board from 2000 through 2010 and Trustee of OHA since 1996, she has led the pursuit of Federal Recognition for Native Hawaiians, resolution of long-standing ceded land revenue disputes, and a vast array of advocacy initiatives for Native Hawaiians. Prior to OHA, she was President and Chief Executive Officer of Alu Like, a non-profit organization whose mission is to assist Native Hawaiians in achieving social and economic self-sufficiency, including workforce training, vocational education, and training in entrepreneurship, business development and computer technology. Ms. Apoliona has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1994. She is active in the community and serves on the boards of Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, Queen Lili’uokalani Children’s Center Advisory Council, The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, and the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian. Ms. Apoliona’s close association with and knowledge of Native Hawaiian affairs and with cultural and charitable causes in Hawaii give her a valuable perspective on the values and interests of our core market, which pervade the business environment. These insights inform the discussion at both the Board and on the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee on which all of the independent directors serve.
|
—
|
||
5
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman;
68; 1994 |
President and Director of the Bernard Osher Foundation (a 36 year-old philanthropic organization headquartered in San Francisco that supports higher education and the arts) since 2004. Lead Independent Director of the Company since 1999. Previously, Dr. Bitterman was President and CEO of the James Irvine Foundation, an independent grant-making foundation serving Californians, and before that President and CEO of KQED, one of the major public broadcasting centers in the United States, Executive Director of the Hawaii Public Broadcasting Authority, Director of the Voice of America, and Director of the Hawaii State Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs (and simultaneously ex-officio Commissioner of Financial Institutions, Commissioner of Securities, and Insurance Commissioner). Until BlackRock’s acquisition of Barclays Global Investors (“BGI”) in 2009, she was a member of the BGI board for nine years, serving on the Audit & Risk Committee as well as chairing the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee. Dr. Bitterman has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1984. She currently is a director of the Bay Area Council Economic Institute, the Hawaii Community Foundation, the Commonwealth Club of California and Board Chair of the PBS Foundation, and an Advisory Council member of the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and the Public Policy Institute of California. She is an Honorary Member of the National Presswomen’s Federation and a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration. Dr. Bitterman received her bachelor of arts degree from Santa Clara University and her M.A. and Ph.D. from Bryn Mawr College. Dr. Bitterman’s long history of experience in broadcasting, media and public policy, her experience as a regulator with authority over Bank of Hawaii and other state-chartered banks, her service on the board of a large mutual fund complex and its key committees, and her over 19 years on the Company’s Board provide her with expertise across a range of issues of critical importance to the Company’s activities in a highly regulated industry as well as the public facing aspects of our business. By virtue of her position as Lead Independent Director, she serves ex-officio as a member of each of the Board’s other standing committees.
|
Barclays Global Investors Funds
|
||
|
Mark A. Burak;
64; 2009 |
Retired. Formerly an independent consultant providing planning and business performance evaluation advisory services, and Executive Vice President for Planning, Analysis and Performance Measurement, Bank of America, having retired in 2000 after more than thirty years of service. Mr. Burak held various accounting and finance positions based in Chicago, London, San Francisco, and Charlotte at Bank of America and the former Continental Illinois National Bank, now part of Bank of America. As a consultant for Bank of Hawaii from late 2000 through 2003, he oversaw the development of the strategic plan and restructured the Company’s management accounting processes, including the implementation of a capital allocation methodology and development of a formal business unit performance evaluation process. Among other positions, Mr. Burak served as Controller, Managing Director of Management Accounting & Analysis, Business Segment Controller, and Regional Controller for Europe and Asia for the former Continental Illinois National Bank. Mr. Burak is a Certified Public Accountant. He has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 2009. He serves on the Board of Trustees of the Honolulu Museum of Art and is a member of Financial Executives International, having served on several local chapter boards and as President of the San Francisco Chapter, and is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Mr. Burak received his bachelors in business administration in public accounting from Loyola University of Chicago and his M.B.A. in finance from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. Mr. Burak’s career in accounting, finance and strategic planning for major banking organizations brings a high level of sophistication to his participation in Board discussion of a wide range of financial, strategic planning and operating matters, and his prior engagement as a consultant to Bank of Hawaii gives him direct knowledge of our business. His professional experience and educational background led the Board to appoint him to its Audit & Risk Committee and to designate him as a financial expert on that Committee. Along with all of the other independent directors, Mr. Burak also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
—
|
||
6
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
Michael J. Chun;
69; 2004 |
Retired. Formerly President and Headmaster of Kamehameha Schools - Kapalama (a college preparatory school serving children of Hawaiian ancestry) from 2001 - 2012 and President, Kamehameha Schools from 1988 - 2012. As President and Headmaster, he was responsible for the leadership, financial management, administration and effectiveness of the college preparatory education program at the flagship Kapalama campus. Prior to his appointment at Kamehameha Schools, Dr. Chun was Vice President of Park Engineering, a Honolulu engineering consulting firm. He also served as Chief Engineer of the City and County of Honolulu and taught at the University of Hawaii where he directed graduate instruction and research in environmental engineering. Dr. Chun has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1993. In addition to being a director of Matson, Inc. (a shipping company that split from Alexander & Baldwin, Inc. in 2012), he serves on the boards of various professional and community organizations, including Hawaii Pacific University, Hawaii Medical Services Association, the Metropolitan Board of the YMCA of Honolulu, and Bishop Museum. Dr. Chun received his bachelors of science degree in civil engineering and his Ph.D. in environmental engineering from the University of Kansas, and his M.S. in civil engineering from the University of Hawaii. Dr. Chun’s leadership of one of Hawaii’s premier educational institutions both provides him with insights into key segments of our markets and customer base and, together with his engineering background, assists the Board in its consideration of a range of operational matters. These insights inform the discussion at both the Board and on the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee on which all of the independent directors serve.
|
Matson, Inc.,
Alexander & Baldwin, Inc.
|
||
|
Clinton R. Churchill;
69; 2001 |
Trustee, The Estate of James Campbell (an organization administering the assets held in trust under the will of James Campbell) since 1992 (Chairman 1998, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). Mr. Churchill served as COO and CEO of The Estate of James Campbell prior to becoming one of its Trustees. He also served as Controller, Financial Vice President, and President of Gaspro, Inc. and three years as a management consultant with Touche Ross & Co. Mr. Churchill has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1992. Mr. Churchill serves as a member of the Military Affairs Council and President of the Pacific Aviation Museum at Pearl Harbor. He received his bachelors of science degree in business and his M.B.A. in management and finance from the University of Arizona. Mr. Churchill’s long association with the Estate of James Campbell (now the James Campbell Company LLC), a nationally diversified real estate company and a major Hawaii landowner, has given him a broad perspective on business affairs in the Company’s core market as well as a deep knowledge of an industry that represents a large portion of our customer base. That perspective as well as Mr. Churchill’s background in financial accounting led the Board to appoint him to its Audit & Risk Committee, which he chairs. Along with all of the other independent directors, Mr. Churchill also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
—
|
||
|
David A. Heenan;
72; 1993 |
Trustee, The Estate of James Campbell (an organization administering the assets held in trust under the will of James Campbell) since 1995 (Chairman 1999, 2001, 2005, and 2009). Dr. Heenan formerly served as Chairman and CEO of Theo H. Davies Co., Ltd., the North American holding company for the Hong Kong-based Jardine Matheson. He also worked internationally for Chevron, Citicorp, and McKinsey. Dr. Heenan has served on the faculties of the Wharton and Columbia Business Schools and is a visiting professor at Georgetown University. Dr. Heenan has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1983. He is the author or co-author of eight books and has written various articles for such diverse publications as the Harvard Business Review, the Sloan Management Review, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. He holds an M.B.A. from Columbia University and Ph.D. from the Wharton School of Business, University of Pennsylvania. As is the case with Mr. Churchill, Dr. Heenan’s association with The Estate of James Campbell, qualifies him for service on the Company’s Board. His international experience with major multinationals gives him an added perspective that is valuable to the Board in light of the broad geographic reach of the Company’s business. Dr. Heenan’s management and business knowledge led the Board to elect him to its Compensation Committee, which he chairs. Along with all of the other independent directors, Dr. Heenan also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc.
|
||
7
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
Peter S. Ho;
47; 2009 |
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since July 2010; President since April 2008; Vice Chairman and Chief Banking Officer from January 2006 to April 2008; Vice Chairman, Investment Services from April 2004 to December 2005; and Executive Vice President, Hawaii Commercial Banking Group from February 2003 to April 2004. Mr. Ho has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company's major subsidiary, since 2005. Effective January 1, 2013, Mr. Ho was elected to the board of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and will serve a three-year term. In 2010 Mr. Ho was Chairman of the 2011 Hawaii Host Committee for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation ("APEC"), the premier forum for Asia-Pacific economies to cooperate on regional trade and investment issues. Mr. Ho is active in the Hawaii community and serves on several boards, including the Hawaii Community Foundation, the Hawaii Chapter of the American Red Cross, the GIFT Foundation, the Strong Foundation, Hanahauoli School, and the Hawaii Bankers Association. He is a member of the Financial Services Roundtable, the Hawaii Business Roundtable, the State of Hawaii Tax Review Commission, and the Hawaii Asia Pacific Association. Mr. Ho holds a bachelors of science degree in business administration and an M.B.A. from the University of Southern California. In 2008, he successfully completed Harvard Business School's Advanced Management Program. Mr. Ho's long career at Bank of Hawaii, his management responsibilities for all aspects of the Company's banking operations and his deep knowledge of our markets, community and culture all qualify him for service on our Board.
|
—
|
||
|
Robert Huret;
67; 2000 |
Managing Member of FTV Management Company, L.P., (a private equity management company) since 1998 and FTV Capital, a multi-stage private equity firm whose limited partners include many of the world’s foremost financial institutions. Mr. Huret is also Chairman of Huret Rothenberg & Co. a private investment firm, and is a director of Caplin Systems, Ltd., Cloudmark, Inc., and Financial Engines, Inc. Previously he was a senior consultant to Montgomery Securities. He has served as Senior Vice President, Finance and Trust Executive Officer at the Bank of California. Mr. Huret was also Vice President of Planning and Mergers and Acquisitions at First Chicago Corporation. He has 44 years of commercial banking, investment banking and private equity investment experience. He has participated in over 100 bank and bank-related mergers, public offerings and joint ventures, with an emphasis on technology companies focused in the financial services industry. Mr. Huret has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 2000. He has served as Trustee of Cornell University and San Francisco University High School. He received his bachelors of science degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University and his M.B.A. with distinction from Harvard University. Mr. Huret’s knowledge of the commercial and investment banking business, his experience in finance and investment activities and his participation in strategic transactions across the financial services spectrum give him a broad and deep perspective on all facets of our business. These qualifications led the Board to appoint him to its Audit & Risk Committee, to designate him as a financial expert, and to appoint him Vice Chairman of the Committee. Along with all of the other independent directors, Mr. Huret also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
Financial Engines, Inc.
|
||
|
Kent T. Lucien;
59; 2006 |
Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer of the Company since April 2008; Trustee, C. Brewer & Co. Ltd., (a Hawaii corporation engaged in agriculture, real estate and power production) from April 2006 to December 2007; and Chief Executive Officer Operations, C. Brewer & Co., Ltd. from May 2001 to April 2006. He also held the positions of Controller and Chief Financial Officer and various other executive positions at C. Brewer & Co., Ltd. Prior to C. Brewer & Co., Ltd., Mr. Lucien worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers. He is a Certified Public Accountant. Mr. Lucien serves on the board of Wailuku Water Company LLC and Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc. He has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 2006. Mr. Lucien received his bachelors of degree from Occidental College and his M.B.A. from Stanford University. Mr. Lucien’s senior executive experience in significant Hawaiian businesses and his background in finance and accounting led the Board to nominate him as a director in 2006 and, prior to becoming the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, to serve on the Audit & Risk Committee as its chair and to be designated as a financial expert. These qualifications, coupled with the deep knowledge of the Company’s finances gained in his current role continue to qualify him for Board service.
|
Maui Land & Pineapple Co., Inc.
|
||
8
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
Martin A. Stein;
72; 1999 |
Partner, RSA Ventures (a consulting and venture capital company) since 1999; Chief Executive Officer and President, Sonoma Mountain Ventures, LLC (strategic and technology consulting and venture capital) 1998 to 2004. RSA Ventures specializes in telecommunications and internet-based financial companies across the United States and international companies including Canada and Israel. For eight years, Mr. Stein served as Vice Chairman of BankAmerica Corporation responsible for all technology and operations worldwide. He chaired various marketing, product strategy and budget committees for Bank of America and its parent company. He also served as EVP and Chief Information Officer responsible for all technology and operations at PaineWebber Corporation. As EVP of Fleet Financial Group, he was responsible for strategic planning, product development, marketing, MIS, operations and payments. Mr. Stein has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1999. Mr. Stein brings extensive experience in merger and consolidation activities, organizational efficiencies and staff management and development. He received a bachelor of arts degree (cum laude) and an honorary doctorate degree in business science from St. Johns University. Mr. Stein’s knowledge of the global commercial banking business and his focus on the technology that continues to be of great significance to the industry, as well as his experience in strategic transactions and operational challenges, allow him to provide the Board with valuable insight across a range of matters. These qualifications led the Board to appoint him to its Audit & Risk Committee. Along with all of the other independent directors, Mr. Stein also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
—
|
||
|
Donald M. Takaki;
71; 1997 |
Chairman and CEO, HawkTree International, Inc. (a diversified holding company engaged in transportation, leasing, business records management, and real estate) since 1999. As Chairman and CEO of Island Movers, Inc., Mr. Takaki has grown his family-owned and operated transportation services company into Hawaii’s largest transportation service company, ranked among the top 250 companies in the State of Hawaii. He is the former Chairman of the Hawaii Convention Authority
, now known as the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau,
and former board member of Hawaiian Airlines. Mr. Takaki has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1990. He is committed to his community, having served on the boards of many business and civic organizations, including the Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau (Chairman 2004-2006), Hawaii Hotel & Lodging Association, Hawaii Korean Chamber of Commerce, Japanese Cultural Center of Hawaii, and Iolani School. He serves as President and General Manager, Pacific Region Baseball, Inc., a non-profit organization that brings student athletes to and from Hawaii and Asia to promote cross cultural learning. In 2007, Mr. Takaki was recognized as the Distinguished Public School Graduate by the Public Schools of Hawaii Foundation. Mr. Takaki’s deep involvement in the community and knowledge of business affairs throughout the Hawaiian Islands, as well as the experience gained through 15 years of service on our Board, make him well-qualified for service as a director.
|
—
|
||
|
Barbara J. Tanabe;
63; 2004 |
Owner and Partner, Ho’akea Communications, LLC (a public affairs company) since 2003. Ms. Tanabe has expertise in communications and issues management with 25 years of experience in public affairs, crisis management, and broadcast journalism in the United States and Asia. She served as President and CEO of Hill & Knowlton/Communications Pacific and her own consulting firm, Pacific Century, where she counseled executives and government officials in the areas of cross-cultural communications, crisis and issues management, and news media management. Ms. Tanabe was one of the first Asian-American women journalists in the nation, and pioneered news coverage of issues dealing with ethnic minorities, diversity, and civil rights. She co-founded a public policy research firm, Hawaii Institute of Public Affairs, which produced studies resulting in legislation to promote economic development in Hawaii. Ms. Tanabe has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1994. She serves on the boards of the Japan-America Society of Hawaii (Chair), Pacific Forum (The Asia arm of the Center for Strategic and International Studies), and numerous task forces including special assignments with the chief justice of the Hawaii State Supreme Court. She received her bachelor of arts degree in communications from the University of Washington and an M.B.A. from the University of Hawaii. Ms. Tanabe’s expertise in and sensitivity to public policy matters, the media, and cultural and ethnic diversity in our core market bring insights that inform a wide range of Board deliberations and qualify her for service on the Board. Her management and business ownership background align her views on the Compensation Committee, on which she serves, with those of shareholders. Along with all of the other independent directors, Ms. Tanabe also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
—
|
||
9
|
Name, Age, and
Year First Elected as Director |
Principal Occupation(s) and Qualifications
|
Other Public
Directorships Held in the Last 5 Years |
||
|
Raymond P. Vara, Jr.; 43; n/a
|
President since 2012 and Chief Executive Officer effective March 2013, Hawaii Pacific Health. As President and CEO, he oversees Hawaii's largest health care provider comprised of Straub Clinic & Hospital, Kapiolani Medical Center for Women & Children, Pali Momi Medical Center, Wilcox Memorial Hospital and Kauai Medical Clinic. Prior to his appointment in 2012, he served as its Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of Operations since 2004. Mr. Vara also served as the Chief Financial Officer from 1998 to 2000 and Chief Executive Officer from 2000 to 2002 for Los Alamos Medical Center in New Mexico, an integrated health care service provider. Prior to his joining the private sector, Mr. Vara held various positions in the United States Army, including Controller for the Army's Northwestern Healthcare Network covering seven states, Deputy Chief Financial Officer of the Madigan Army Medical Center in Tacoma, Washington, and Assistant Administrator and Chief Financial Officer of Bassett Army Community Hospital in Fairbanks, Alaska. Mr. Vara is active in the Hawaii community and serves on several boards, including Island Insurance Company, American Heart Association-National Board, Finance and Audit Committee, American Hospital Association-Quality Committee, Hawaii Pacific University - Chair, Compensation Committee, and American Red Cross Hawaii Chapter. Mr. Vara holds a bachelor's degree in finance from Hawaii Pacific University and received his MBA from the University of Alaska. His community involvement and leadership of Hawaii's largest health care provider and non-governmental employer will bring a new and valuable perspective of a key segment of the markets we serve. Mr. Vara's financial and operational background coupled with his senior executive and audit committee experience make him well-qualified to serve on the Company's Board.
|
—
|
||
|
Robert W. Wo;
59; 2002 |
Owner and Director, C.S. Wo & Sons, Ltd. (a furniture retailer) since 1984. Under Mr. Wo’s leadership, this third generation family-owned and operated business has grown to become Hawaii’s largest furniture retailer, ranking it among the Top 250 companies in the State of Hawaii and among the Top 100 furniture retailers in the nation. He is a member of the Hawaii Business Roundtable whose mission is to promote the overall economic vitality and social health of Hawaii. Mr. Wo has been a director of Bank of Hawaii, the Company’s major subsidiary, since 1991. He has always been active in the community, having served on the boards of Aloha United Way, Junior Achievement of Hawaii, and the Retail Merchants of Hawaii. Currently, Mr. Wo serves on several business and non-profit boards, including Grace Pacific Corporation, Hawaii Medical Service Association, Assets School, and Bobby Benson Center. He received his bachelor's degree in economics from Stanford University and earned his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Mr. Wo’s deep involvement in the community and knowledge of business affairs throughout the Hawaiian Islands bring a customer perspective to his participation in Board affairs and, as major employer in the state, qualify him for service on the Compensation Committee in addition to his role as a director. Along with all of the other independent directors, Mr. Wo also serves on the Board’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.
|
—
|
||
10
BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP
At the close of business on February 14, 2013, Bank of Hawaii Corporation had 44,868,440 shares of its common stock outstanding. As of February 14, 2013, this table shows the amount of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock owned by (i) each person or entity who is known by us to beneficially own more than five percent of Bank of Hawaii Corporation’s common stock; (ii) each current director and director nominee, (iii) each of the executive officers named in the Summary Compensation Table (the “named executive officers”), and (iv) all of our directors and executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise indicated and subject to applicable community property and similar statutes, all persons listed below have sole voting and investment power over all shares of common stock beneficially owned. Share ownership has been computed in accordance with SEC rules and does not necessarily indicate beneficial ownership for any other purpose.
|
Name
|
Number of
Shares Beneficially Owned |
Right to
Acquire Within 60 Days |
Total
|
Percent of
Outstanding Shares as of February 14, 2013 |
|||||||||
|
More than Five Percent Beneficial Ownership
|
|||||||||||||
|
BlackRock, Inc. (1)
40 East 52nd Street
New York, New York 10022
|
5,185,505
|
|
—
|
|
5,185,505
|
|
11.54
|
%
|
|||||
|
State Street Corporation (2)
State Street Financial Center
One Lincoln Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02111
|
2,711,606
|
|
—
|
|
2,711,606
|
|
6.00
|
%
|
|||||
|
The Vanguard Group (3)
100 Vanguard Blvd.
Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355
|
2,529,929
|
|
—
|
|
2,529,929
|
|
5.62
|
%
|
|||||
|
Janus Capital Management LLC (4)
151 Detroit Street
Denver, Colorado 80206
|
2,277,494
|
|
—
|
|
2,277,494
|
|
5.10
|
%
|
|||||
|
Current Directors and Director Nominees
|
|||||||||||||
|
S. Haunani Apoliona
|
13,013
|
|
(5)
|
10,248
|
|
23,261
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman
|
28,532
|
|
(5)(6)
|
10,248
|
|
38,780
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Mark A. Burak
|
3,953
|
|
(5)
|
—
|
|
3,953
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Michael J. Chun
|
18,621
|
|
(5)(6)
|
10,248
|
|
28,869
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Clinton R. Churchill
|
23,596
|
|
(5)(6)(8)
|
10,248
|
|
33,844
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
David A. Heenan
|
47,842
|
|
(5)(7)
|
7,248
|
|
55,090
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Robert Huret
|
31,850
|
|
(5)
|
10,248
|
|
42,098
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Martin A. Stein
|
11,787
|
|
(5)(6)
|
10,248
|
|
22,035
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Donald M. Takaki
|
38,337
|
|
(5)
|
10,248
|
|
48,585
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Barbara J. Tanabe
|
20,154
|
|
(5)
|
10,248
|
|
30,402
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Raymond P. Vara, Jr.
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
*
|
|
|||||
|
Robert W. Wo
|
36,540
|
|
(5)(6)
|
10,248
|
|
46,788
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Named Executive Officers
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho (also Director Nominee)
|
133,906
|
|
101,585
|
|
235,491
|
|
*
|
|
|||||
|
Kent T. Lucien (also Director Nominee)
|
58,500
|
|
(6)(9)
|
32,191
|
|
90,691
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
45,430
|
|
(10)
|
30,000
|
|
75,430
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
64,512
|
|
(6)
|
60,990
|
|
125,502
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
22,214
|
|
(6)
|
4,776
|
|
26,990
|
|
*
|
|
||||
|
All current directors, director nominees, and executive officers as a group (21 persons)
|
713,411
|
|
445,560
|
|
1,158,971
|
|
2.60
|
%
|
|||||
|
* Each of the directors and named executive officers beneficially owned less than 1 percent of Bank of Hawaii Corporation's
outstanding common stock as of February 14, 2013.
|
|||||||||||||
|
(1)
|
According to its Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on January 11, 2013, BlackRock, Inc. is a parent holding company or control person and its subsidiaries, BlackRock Japan Co. Ltd, BlackRock Asset Management Deutschland AG, BlackRock Advisors LLC, BlackRock Advisors (UK) Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Australia Limited, BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited, BlackRock Fund Advisors, BlackRock Institutional Trust Company, N.A., BlackRock Investment Management, LLC, BlackRock Investment Management (UK) Limited, and BlackRock International Limited (collectively referred to as “BlackRock”), may be deemed to have beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2012 of 5,185,505 shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock owned by its clients, none known to have more than five percent except subsidiary BlackRock Fund Advisors and the iShares DJ Select Dividend Index Fund, an investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940. According to the same filing, BlackRock has sole power to vote or to direct the vote over 5,185,505 of those shares, and sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 5,185,505 shares.
|
11
|
(2)
|
According to its Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 11, 2013, State Street Corporation is a parent holding company or control person and its subsidiaries, State Street Bank and Trust Company; SSGA Funds Management, Inc.; State Street Global Advisors Limited; State Street Global Advisors Ltd; State Street Global Advisors, Australia Limited; and State Street Global Advisors, Asia Limited, may be deemed to have beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2012 of 2,711,606 shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock owned by its clients, none known to have more than five percent of outstanding shares. According to the same filing, State Street Corporation has shared power to vote or to direct the vote over 2,711,606 of those shares, and shared power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 2,711,606 shares.
|
|
(3)
|
According to its Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 13, 2013, The Vanguard Group is an investment adviser and its subsidiaries, Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company, and Vanguard Investments Australia, Ltd., may be deemed to have beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2012 of 2,529,929 shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock owned by its clients, none known to have more than five percent of outstanding shares. According to the same filing, The Vanguard Group has sole power to vote or to direct the vote over 32,197 of those shares, sole power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 2,499,832 shares, and shared power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 30,097 shares.
|
|
(4)
|
According to its Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on February 14, 2013, Janus Capital Management LLC is an investment advisor as well as a parent holding company or control person and its subsidiaries, INTECH Investment Management and Perkins Investment Management LLC, may be deemed to have beneficial ownership as of December 31, 2012 of 2,277,494 shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock owned by its clients., none known to have more than five percent except subsidiary Perkins Investment Management LLC. According to the same filing, Janus Capital Management LLC has shared power to vote or to direct the vote over 2,277,494 of those shares, and shared power to dispose or to direct the disposition of 2,277,494 shares.
|
|
(5)
|
Includes restricted shares owned by directors under the Director Stock Program: Ms. Apoliona, 8,723 shares; Ms. Bitterman, 1,063 shares; Mr. Burak, 1,063 shares; Mr. Chun, 13,863 shares; Mr. Churchill, 13,863 shares; Mr. Heenan, 21,863 shares; Mr. Huret, 1,063 shares; Mr. Stein, 1,063 shares; Mr. Takaki, 17,863 shares; Ms. Tanabe, 1,063 shares; and Mr. Wo, 13,563 shares. Also includes shares owned by directors under the Directors Deferred Compensation Plan: Messrs. Churchill, 4,888 shares; Heenan, 20,833 shares; Huret, 17,425 shares; Takaki, 13,912 shares; and Wo, 9,818 shares; and Ms. Tanabe, 7,765 shares.
|
|
(6)
|
Includes shares held individually or jointly by family members as to which the specified officer or director may be deemed to have shared voting or investment power as follows: Ms. Bitterman, 6,190 shares, Mr. Chun, 4,336 shares, Mr. Churchill, 3,476 shares, Mr. Stein, 3,000 shares, Mr. Wo, 9,450 shares, Mr. Lucien, 5,500 shares, Ms. Sellers, 38,653 shares, and Mr. Hamano, 142 shares.
|
|
(7)
|
Includes 420 shares owned by a family partnership of which Mr. Heenan has shared voting and investment power. Also includes 156 shares owned by David A. Heenan, Inc. of which Mr. Heenan is president.
|
|
(8)
|
Includes 500 shares held in an Individual Retirement Account.
|
|
(9)
|
Includes 1,000 shares held in a Keogh account.
|
|
(10)
|
Includes 1,890 shares held in an Individual Retirement Account.
|
12
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Corporate Governance Guidelines
The Company and the Board have adopted Corporate Governance Guidelines (“Governance Guidelines”). The Governance Guidelines are posted on the Company’s Investor Relations website at www.boh.com. The Governance Guidelines address director qualification and independence standards, responsibilities of the Board, access to management, independence standards and access to independent advisors, compensation, orientation and continuing education, Board committees, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) evaluation, management succession, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, shareholder communications to the Board and the Board’s annual performance evaluation.
The Company’s leadership structure consists of a combined Chairman and CEO and a Lead Independent Director. At this time, the Board believes that it is in the best interests of the Company to have a single individual serve as Chairman and CEO to control and implement the short- and long-term strategies of the Company. The Board believes that this joint position provides it with the ability to perform its oversight role over management with the benefit of a management perspective as to the Company’s business strategy and all other aspects of the business. With its Lead Independent Director, this governance structure also provides a form of leadership that allows the Board to function distinct from management, capable of objective judgment regarding management’s performance, and enables the Board to fulfill its duties effectively and efficiently. The Company’s leadership structure ensures the objectivity of the Board’s decisions and its role in reviewing the performance of management. Through its leadership and governance processes the Company has successfully established a governance structure that provides both oversight and guidance by the Board to management regarding strategic planning, risk assessment and management, and corporate performance.
The Company’s Lead Independent Director is appointed by the Board and the current Lead Independent Director, Ms. Mary G. F. Bitterman, has served in this position since 1999. The Company’s Governance Guidelines clearly define the Lead Independent Director’s role and duties which include, but are not limited to: serving as Chairman of the Company’s Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, presiding over regularly scheduled executive sessions of the non-management directors, serving as a liaison between the non-management directors and executive management, and assisting the Board and executive management to ensure compliance with the Governance Guidelines.
Ten of the eleven non-management directors, including the Lead Independent Director, are “independent” as defined by the NYSE rules. The non-management directors meet in executive session without management in attendance for regularly scheduled meetings. The non-management directors may also meet in executive session each time the full Board convenes for a meeting. In 2012, the non-management directors twice met in executive session. The Lead Independent Director also meets regularly on an individual basis with members of the Company’s executive management team.
Director Qualifications and Nomination Process
The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee is responsible for identifying and assessing all director candidates and recommending nominees to the Board. Potential nominees are evaluated based on their independence, within the meaning of the Governance Guidelines and the rules of the NYSE. Candidates to be nominated as a director, including those submitted by shareholders, are selected based on, among other criteria, their integrity, informed judgment, financial literacy, high performance standards, accomplishments and reputation in the community, experience, skill sets, and ability to commit adequate time to Board and committee matters and to act on behalf of shareholders. The criteria also include a determination of the needs of the Board and of the interplay between each individual’s personal qualities and characteristics and those of the other directors and potential directors in building a Board that is effective, collegial and responsive to the needs of the Company and its shareholders. In addition, Board members are expected to participate in continuing education and training opportunities to stay current on corporate governance, industry trends and issues and to understand the Company’s business.
The objective of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee is to present a combination of candidates that will result in a Board with a wide range of skills, expertise, industry knowledge, viewpoints, and backgrounds, with business and community contacts relevant to the Company’s business. To accomplish this, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee seeks candidates from different age groups, ethnicities, genders, industries, and experiences, in addition to the criteria described above. The result is a diverse and experienced Board, ranging in age from 47 to 72, with a variety of ethnicities and members of both genders. The Board includes directors with experience in public corporations, not-for-profit
13
organizations, and entrepreneurial individuals who have successfully run their own private enterprise. The Board also has the broad set of skills necessary for providing oversight to a financial institution, which includes proven leadership, and expertise in finance, accounting, information technology, lending, investment management, and communications. With the exception of Mr. Mark A. Burak, who was first elected in 2009, all of the current non-management directors have been on the Company’s Board for at least five years.
To further complement the Board's skill sets and assist the Board in its increasing regulatory and oversight responsibilities, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee recommended the number of directors be increased from 13 to 14 and the nomination of Mr. Raymond P. Vara, Jr. to the Board. Following a review of the Board's composition, the Board approved the increase in the number of directors from 13 to 14 at its December 2012 meeting and recommended Mr. Vara as a director nominee.
A shareholder may submit a candidate for consideration by the Board to be included in the Board’s slate of director nominees. Candidates proposed by shareholders will be evaluated by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee under the same criteria that are applied to other candidates. The criteria are set forth above and in the Company’s By-Laws and Governance Guidelines. Candidates to be considered for nomination by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee at the 2014 Annual Meeting of Shareholders must be presented in writing to the Corporate Secretary on or before November 15, 2013 at 130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
Communication with Directors
Shareholders and any interested parties may communicate with the Board, non-management directors, or the Lead Independent Director by sending correspondence c/o the Company’s Corporate Secretary, 130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. All appropriate communications received will be forwarded to the Board, non-management directors or the Lead Independent Director as addressed.
Code of Business Conduct and Ethics
The Company has earned its reputation as a respected leader in the communities it serves and in the financial services industry by conducting business in an ethical, responsible and professional manner. The Company is proud of the high standards of quality and service that have been its hallmark through the years. These qualities represent fundamental business practices and apply to all directors, officers and employees.
The Company and Board have adopted a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for directors, executive officers (including its chief executive officer, chief financial officer, chief accounting officer and controller) and employees (the “Code”) that is posted on the Investor Relations page of the Company’s website at www.boh.com. The Code addresses the professional, honest and candid conduct of each director, officer and employee; conflicts of interest, disclosure process, compliance with laws, rules and regulations (including securities trading); corporate opportunities, confidentiality, fair dealing, protection and proper use of Company assets; and encourages the reporting of any illegal or unethical behavior. A waiver for an executive officer or director of the Company may be made only by the Audit & Risk Committee of the Board and must be promptly disclosed as required by SEC and NYSE rules. The Company will disclose any such waivers, as well as any amendments to the Code, on the Company’s website at www.boh.com.
Policy Prohibiting Hedging and Pledging of Company Stock
The Company's Securities Trading Policy (the "Policy") specifically prohibits directors and employees from hedging the risk associated with the ownership of Bank of Hawaii Corporation's common stock. The Policy also prohibits directors and employees from pledging transactions involving Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock as collateral, including the use of a traditional margin account with a broker-dealer.
14
Director Independence
The Board is comprised of a majority of independent directors as defined by the NYSE listing standards. In affirmatively determining that a director is independent of the Company’s management and has no material relationship with the Company, either directly or indirectly as a partner, shareholder, or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company, the Board applies the following categorical standards, in addition to such other factors as the Board deems appropriate:
|
a)
|
In no event shall a director be considered independent if the director is an employee, or a member of the director’s immediate family is an executive officer of the Company until three years after the end of such employment relationship. Employment as an interim Chairman of the Board, CEO, Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") or other executive officer shall not disqualify a director from being considered independent following that employment.
|
|
b)
|
In no event shall a director be considered independent if the director receives, or a member of the director’s immediate family receives, more than $120,000 per year in direct compensation from the Company, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service) and is not independent until three years after ceasing to receive such compensation.
|
|
c)
|
In no event shall a director be considered independent if the director is a current partner or employee of the Company’s internal or external auditor, or whose immediate family member is a current partner or employee of such a firm and personally works on the Company’s audit; or was a partner or employee of such a firm and personally worked on the Company’s audit within the last three years.
|
|
d)
|
In no event shall a director be considered independent if the director is employed, or a member of the director’s immediate family is employed, as an executive officer of another company where any of the Company’s present executives serves on that company’s compensation committee until three years after the end of such service or employment relationship.
|
|
e)
|
In no event shall a director be considered independent if the director is an executive officer or employee, or an immediate family member of the director is an executive officer, of a company that makes payments to, or receives payments from, the Company for property or services rendered in an amount which, in any single fiscal year, exceeds the greater of $1.0 million, or 2% of such other company’s consolidated gross revenues for such year, until three years after falling below such threshold.
|
|
f)
|
A director will not fail to be deemed independent solely as a result of the director’s and the director’s immediate family members’, or a director’s affiliated entities, banking relationship with the Company if such relationship does not violate paragraphs (a) through (e) above and is made in the ordinary course of business on substantially the same terms as those prevailing at the time for comparable transactions with persons not affiliated with the Company and, with respect to extensions of credit, is made in compliance with applicable laws, including Regulation O of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, and do not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features.
|
|
g)
|
Audit & Risk Committee members may not receive directly or indirectly any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee from the Company and shall otherwise meet the independence criteria of Section 10A-3 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Audit & Risk Committee members may receive directors’ fees and other in-kind consideration ordinarily available to directors, as well as regular benefits that other directors receive (including any additional such fees or consideration paid to directors with respect to service on committees of the Board).
|
|
h)
|
If a particular commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable or familial relationship or transaction that is not addressed by the above standards exists between a director and the Company, the Board will determine, after taking into account all relevant facts and circumstances, whether such relationship or transaction is in the Board’s judgment material, and therefore whether the affected director is independent.
|
15
For purposes of these independence standards, an “immediate family member” includes the director’s spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than a domestic employee) who shares the director’s home.
The following eleven directors and nominees have been determined by the Board to be independent: Messrs. Burak, Chun, Churchill, Heenan, Huret, Stein, Vara, and Wo, and Mmes. Apoliona, Bitterman, and Tanabe, and accordingly, the Board has a majority of independent directors as defined by the listing standards of the NYSE and the Governance Guidelines. All of the committees are composed entirely of independent directors who also meet applicable committee independence standards. Mr. Ho is the Chairman, CEO and President of the Company and is therefore not independent, Mr. Lucien is the CFO of the Company and is therefore not independent, and Mr. Takaki has been determined not to be an independent director due to his and his family’s ownership interest in HawkTree International, Inc. (“HawkTree”), a diversified holding company engaged in transportation, leasing, business records management, and real estate. HawkTree and its subsidiaries provide courier, armored car, ATM servicing, moving, and relocation services for the Company. More specific information is available on pa
ge 41 in
the section regarding "Certain Relationships and Related Transactions."
Human Resources and Compensation Committee ("Compensation Committee") Interlocks and Insider Participation
No member of the Compensation Committee during fiscal year 2012 served as an officer, former officer, or employee of the Company or had a relationship that was required to be disclosed under “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.” Further, during 2012, no executive officer of the Company served as:
|
•
|
A member of the Compensation Committee (or equivalent) of any other entity, one of whose executive officers served as one of our directors or was an immediate family member of a director, or served on our Compensation Committee; or
|
|
•
|
A director of any other entity, one of whose executive officers or their immediate family member served on our Compensation Committee.
|
Oversight of Risk
The Company's governance, including policies, standards and procedures, has been developed with the goal of ensuring that business decisions and the execution of business processes are in compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.
Authority for accepting risk exposures on behalf of the Company originates from the Board and in turn is delegated through the Managing Committee and its subcommittees, including the Risk Council. The Risk Council, chaired by the Chief Risk Officer, provides the Managing Committee with a forum for the review and communication of both specific and company-wide risk issues, and serves to enhance collaboration among all areas of the Company that create and manage risk, while reinforcing executive management’s responsibility for ensuring risk is managed within established tolerances.
Risk management at the Company is the process for identifying, measuring, controlling and monitoring risk across the enterprise given its business as a financial institution and financial intermediary. Risk management crosses all functions and employees and is embedded in all aspects of planning and performance measurement. The Company’s systems, information and timely reporting are designed to enable the organization to quickly adapt to early warning signs.
The Board is responsible for oversight of the Company’s enterprise risk framework. The Board has delegated to the Audit & Risk Committee primary responsibility for overseeing financial, credit, investment and operational risk exposures including regulatory and legal risk; to the Fiduciary and Investment Management Committee primary responsibility for oversight of fiduciary and investment risk of client accounts; and to the Compensation Committee primary responsibility for oversight of risk related to management and staff. These committees report to the full Board to ensure the Company’s overall risk exposures are understood, including risk interrelationships. The Board also oversees reputational risk.
Risk reports are provided and discussed at every committee and Board meeting. In addition to detailed reports, the Board reviews an Enterprise Risk Position report that reflects key risk measures and trends across the Company. Key managers responsible for risk management (the Chief Risk Officer, the Treasurer, the Chief Compliance Officer, the General Counsel, and the Chief Fiduciary Officer) regularly provide updates at the respective committee and Board meetings. In
16
support of the Board’s risk oversight role and to ensure that potential problems are surfaced, the Audit & Risk Committee directly oversees the Company’s Internal Audit and Credit Review functions.
Compensation Policies and Risk
The Board’s risk oversight responsibility includes the implementation of compensation programs that do not encourage or incentivize excessive risk taking. The Compensation Committee is responsible for establishing and reviewing the Company’s executive compensation programs, as well as the compensation programs for employees generally, and ensuring that the programs do not encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking or create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
In 2012, the Company completed its comprehensive annual review of its policies and incentive plans. This review confirmed that these policies and plans encourage behavior that is within the Company's risk tolerance, are compatible with effective controls and risk management and are supported by strong corporate governance, including a risk and control monitoring process which is embedded in its quarterly performance review process. The review further confirmed that no individual employee or groups of employees' incentive plans encourage unnecessary or excessive risk taking or create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company.
17
BOARD COMMITTEES AND MEETINGS
The Board met 10 times during 2012. The Board’s policy is that directors should make every effort to regularly attend meetings of the Board and committees on which they serve and the Company’s annual shareholder meeting. Each director attended 75% or more of the aggregate of the total number of Board meetings and the total number of meetings held by the committees on which he or she served in 2012. All of the Company’s directors attended the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
Board Committees
The Board has three standing committees: the Audit & Risk Committee, the Human Resources & Compensation Committee, and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee. The charters for the respective Board committees are posted in the Investor Relations section of the Company’s website at www.boh.com.
The Board has affirmatively determined that all of the members of the Audit & Risk, Compensation, and Nominating & Corporate Governance Committees (collectively the “Board Committees”) meet the independence standards of the NYSE and the Company’s Governance Guidelines. The Board Committees’ charters require that each committee perform an annual evaluation of its performance and assess the adequacy of its charter. Each committee has the authority to retain consultants and advisors to assist it in its duties, including the sole authority for the retention, termination and negotiation of the terms and conditions of the engagement.
Below are the members of each current standing committee.
|
Audit & Risk
|
Compensation
|
Nominating & Corporate
Governance |
||
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman
|
S. Haunani Apoliona
|
||
|
Mark A. Burak
|
David A. Heenan*
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman*
|
||
|
Clinton R. Churchill*
|
Barbara J. Tanabe
|
Mark A. Burak
|
||
|
Robert Huret **
|
Robert W. Wo
|
Michael J. Chun
|
||
|
Martin A. Stein
|
Clinton R. Churchill
|
|||
|
David A. Heenan
|
||||
|
Robert Huret
|
||||
|
Martin A. Stein
|
||||
|
Barbara J. Tanabe
|
||||
|
Robert W. Wo
|
||||
|
*
|
Committee Chairman
|
|
**
|
Committee Vice Chairman
|
18
Audit & Risk Committee: 7 Meetings in 2012
The Audit & Risk Committee operates under and annually reviews a charter that has been adopted by the Board. The Audit & Risk Committee’s duties include assisting the Board in its oversight of the following areas of the Company: regulatory and financial accounting, reporting and credit risk management; compliance with legal and regulatory requirements; the independent registered public accounting firm’s qualifications and independence; and overseeing the performance of the Company’s internal audit function and independent registered public accounting firm. The Audit & Risk Committee also provides oversight of management’s activities with respect to capital management and liquidity planning, including dividends and share repurchases, and overall interest rate risk management. The Board has determined that Messrs. Burak and Huret meet the definition of a “financial expert” within the meaning of the SEC regulations adopted under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Board has determined that all Committee members meet the NYSE standard of financial literacy and have accounting or related financial management expertise. The Committee has adopted policies and procedures governing the following: pre-approval of audit and non-audit services; the receipt and treatment of complaints regarding accounting, internal controls, or auditing matters and the confidential, anonymous submission by employees of the Company regarding questionable accounting or audit matters; and restrictions on the Company’s hiring of certain employees of the independent registered public accounting firm. The Committee is also responsible for revie
wing Company transactions involving a director or executive officer. The Audit & Risk Committee Report is located on page 43.
Compensation Committee: 8 Meetings in 2012
The Compensation Committee's duties are set forth in its charter, and include responsibility for compensation levels of directors and members of executive management and reviewing the performance of executive management. The Committee reviews and approves goals for incentive compensation plans and stock plans, and evaluates performance against those goals. The Compensation Committee also reviews management development and training programs as well as succession planning for senior and executive management. The Compensation Committee charter allows for the delegation of its duties to its own subcommittee as long as such delegation is in compliance with all applicable laws, rules, and listing standards. The CEO, in consultation with the director of human resources, makes recommendations with respect to non-CEO executive officer compensation. The Compensation Committee Report is located on page 22.
Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee: 6 Meetings in 2012
The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee's duties are set forth in its charter and include reviewing the qualifications of all Board candidates and recommending qualified candidates for membership on the Board. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee reviews the Board’s organization, procedures and committees and makes recommendations concerning the size and composition of the Board and its committees. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee makes recommendations to the Board regarding standards for determining non-management director independence and reviews the qualifications and independence of the members of the Board and its committees. The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee also reviews and evaluates the Company’s compliance with corporate governance requirements and leads and oversees the Board and its committees’ annual performance evaluations. Further information regarding the responsibilities performed by the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and the Company’s corporate governance is provided in the committee charter and the Governance Guidelines.
19
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION
Retainer Fees
In 2012, based on analyses completed by Veritas Executive Compensation Consultants, LLC (“Veritas”), which merged with Meridian Compensation Partners, LLC effective April 1, 2012 and is now known as Meridian, the Board's independent executive compensation consultant, the Board approved the following retainer fees:
•
The annual retainer for service on the Board remained at $42,500;
•
An additional annual retainer for the Lead Independent Director remained at $15,000;
|
•
|
The annual retainer for Audit & Risk Committee members was increased from $9,000 to $13,000, the annual retainer for the Chairman of the Audit & Risk Committee was increased from $19,000 to $20,000, and the annual retainer for the Vice Chairman of the Audit & Risk Committee was increased from $14,000 to $15,000. The increases in retainer fees were in recognition of the increasing oversight responsibilities and time commitment required of the Audit & Risk Committee members; and
|
|
•
|
The annual retainer for Compensation Committee members remained at $11,250 and the annual retainer for the Chairman of the Compensation Committee remained at $19,250.
|
In addition to these standing committees, the Board has other committees for which directors received fees in 2012. Ms. Apoliona and Mr. Takaki are members of the Benefit Plans Committee (“BPC”), and Mms. Apoliona and Tanabe and Messrs. Chun, Takaki, and Wo are members of the Fiduciary Investment Management Committee (“FIMC”). In 2012, the FIMC chairman's (Mr. Wo) annual retainer remained at $12,500 and annual retainer fees for the FIMC and BPC members remained at $7,500 and $5,000, respectively. The Directors are reimbursed for Board-related travel expenses, and directors who are non-Hawaii residents receive an additional $5,000 to compensate them for travel time.
Director Stock Plan
The Company maintains the Bank of Hawaii Corporation Amended and Restated Director Stock Compensation Plan (the “Director Stock Plan”). The purpose of the Director Stock Plan is to advance the interests of the Company by encouraging and enabling eligible non-employee members of the Board to acquire and retain throughout each member's tenure as director a proprietary interest in the Company by owning shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock. The Director Stock Plan allows for the granting of stock options, restricted common stock, and restricted stock units. Under the Director Stock Plan, the Board has the flexibility to set the form and terms of awards. In 2012, each of the eleven non-employee Board members was given a stock award of 1,063 shares of restricted common stock (“Restricted Shares”) with a vesting date of one year from the date of grant. In 2012, no stock options or restricted stock units were granted under the Director Stock Plan.
Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan
The Company maintains the Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan, under which a non-employee director may participate and elect to defer the payment of all or a portion of his/her annual Board and committee retainer fees. At the director's choice, deferred amounts under the Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan may be payable: 1) beginning on the first day of the first month after the participating director ceases to be a director of the Company; or 2) on an anniversary date of the director's choosing after the director ceases to be a director; or 3) a date specified by the director (which may include a date prior to the date a director ceases to be a director). Deferred amounts are paid to the participant in a lump sum or in equal annual installments over such period of years (not exceeding 10 years) as the participant elects at the time of deferral. If a participant dies, all deferred and previously unpaid amounts will be paid in a lump sum to the participant's beneficiary on the second day of the calendar year following the year of death. A participant's deferred amounts are adjusted for appreciation or depreciation in value based on hypothetical investments in one or more mutual funds or in shares of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock, as may be directed by the participant. The Company's obligations under the Directors' Deferred Compensation Plan are payable from its general assets, although the Company has established a rabbi trust to assist it in meeting its liabilities under the Plan. The assets of the trust are at all times subject to the claims of the Company's general creditors.
20
Director Stock Ownership Guidelines
The Board believes it is important to support an ownership culture for the Company's directors, employees and shareholders. To ensure that linkage to shareholders occurs among the fiduciaries of the Company each non-management director is required to own a minimum amount of five times his or her annual cash retainer in Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock. Directors are given five years from first joining the Board to achieve guideline levels of ownership. Ten of the current non-management directors have satisfied the ownership guidelines. One has made significant progress in meeting the ownership guidelines in 2012 and is on schedule to satisfy the ownership guidelines within the required five-year period.
Director Compensation
The following table presents, for the year ended December 31, 2012, information on compensation earned by or awarded to each non-employee director who served on the Board of Directors during 2012.
DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE
|
Name
|
Fees
Earned or Paid in Cash ($)(1) |
Stock
Awards ($)(2) |
Option
Awards ($)(3) |
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation ($) |
Change in
Pension Value and Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($) |
Total
($) |
|||||||||||||
|
S. Haunani Apoliona
|
55,000
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
107,459
|
|
|||||||
|
Mary G. F. Bitterman
|
86,750
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
139,209
|
|
|||||||
|
Mark A. Burak
|
55,500
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
107,959
|
|
|||||||
|
Michael J. Chun
|
50,000
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
102,459
|
|
|||||||
|
Clinton R. Churchill
|
62,500
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
114,959
|
|
|||||||
|
David A. Heenan
|
61,750
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
114,209
|
|
|||||||
|
Robert Huret
|
62,500
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
114,959
|
|
|||||||
|
Martin A. Stein
|
60,500
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
112,959
|
|
|||||||
|
Donald M. Takaki
|
55,000
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
107,459
|
|
|||||||
|
Barbara J. Tanabe
|
61,250
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
113,709
|
|
|||||||
|
Robert W. Wo
|
66,250
|
|
52,459
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
118,709
|
|
|||||||
|
(1)
|
Messrs. Heenan, Huret, and Wo elected to defer all, and Ms. Tanabe elected to defer 75% of their respective fees earned in 2012. Mr. Takaki elected to defer his board retainer fees only in 2012.
|
|
(2)
|
The amounts in this column reflect the fair market value of the restricted stock on the date of grant. On April 27, 2012, the Company issued grants of 1,063 shares of restricted common stock to each of the non-management directors, having an aggregate fair value of $52,459 based on the stock fair market value of $49.35 per share on the date of the grant; 100% of the grant will vest on April 19, 2013. As of December 31, 2012, each director had the following number of restricted stock awards accumulated in their accounts (which excludes options exercised and held as common stock in their accounts): Ms. Apoliona, 2,863 shares; Ms. Bitterman, 1,063 shares; Mr. Burak, 1,063 shares; Mr. Chun, 2,863 shares; Mr. Churchill, 2,863 shares; Mr. Heenan, 2,863 shares; Mr. Huret, 1,063 shares; Mr. Stein, 1,063 shares; Mr. Takaki, 2,863 shares; Ms. Tanabe, 1,063 shares; and Mr. Wo, 2,863 shares.
|
|
(3)
|
No option awards were granted in 2012. As of December 31, 2012, each director had outstanding options to purchase the indicated number of shares of the Company's common stock: Ms. Apoliona, 10,248; Ms. Bitterman, 10,248; Mr. Burak 0; Mr. Chun, 10,248; Mr. Churchill, 10,248; Mr. Heenan, 10,248; Mr. Huret, 10,248; Mr. Stein, 10,248; Mr. Takaki, 10,248; Ms. Tanabe, 10,248; and Mr. Wo, 10,248.
|
21
PROPOSAL 2: ADVISORY VOTE ON EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (the “Dodd-Frank Act”) provides shareholders the opportunity to vote, on an advisory (non-binding) basis, to approve the compensation of our named executive officers as disclosed in this proxy statement in accordance with the SEC’s compensation disclosure rules.
As an advisory vote, this proposal is not binding upon the Company. However, the Compensation Committee, which is responsible for designing and administering the Company’s executive compensation program, values the opinions expressed by shareholders and considers the outcome of the vote when making future compensation decisions for its executive officers. The Company currently conducts annual advisory votes on executive compensation. The Company’s shareholders approved its executive compensation at the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.
As described in the Compensation Discussion and Analysis, the primary focus of the Company's executive compensation programs is to encourage and reward behavior that promotes sustainable growth in shareholder value. Our executive compensation programs are intended to balance risk and reward in relation to the Company’s overall business strategy and further align management’s interests with shareholders’ interests. The Company’s commitment to a performance culture is reflected in its strong financial performance in recent years despite challenging economic conditions. Accordingly, the Board of Directors recommends that shareholders approve the executive compensation programs by approving the following advisory resolution:
RESOLVED, that the shareholders of Bank of Hawaii Corporation approve, on an advisory basis, the compensation of the individuals identified in the Summary Compensation Table, as disclosed in the Company’s 2013 proxy statement pursuant to the compensation disclosure rules of the SEC, which disclosure includes the Compensation Discussion and Analysis section, the compensation tables, and the accompanying footnotes in this proxy statement.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the foregoing proposal.
COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT
The Compensation Committee, composed entirely of independent directors in accordance with the applicable laws, regulations, NYSE listing requirements and the Governance Guidelines, sets and administers policies that govern the Company’s executive compensation programs, and various incentive and stock programs. As members of the Compensation Committee, we have reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis to be included in the Company’s 2013 Proxy Statement with management and, based on these discussions, recommended to the Company’s Board (and the Board subsequently approved the recommendation) that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in such Proxy Statement.
As submitted by the members of the Compensation Committee,
David A. Heenan, Chairman
Mary G. F. Bitterman
Barbara J. Tanabe
Robert W. Wo
22
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION
COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Our Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the key features of our executive compensation program and the approach taken by the Compensation Committee in setting 2012 compensation for the following named executive officers:
•
Peter S. Ho, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President
•
Kent T. Lucien, Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer
•
Mark A. Rossi, Vice Chairman, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary
•
Mary E. Sellers, Vice Chairman, Chief Risk Officer
•
Wayne Y. Hamano, Vice Chairman, Chief Commercial Officer
Executive Summary
The primary focus of the Company's executive compensation program is to encourage and reward performance that supports the Company's business strategies and promotes sustainable growth in shareholder value. As part of this focus, compensation risks are assessed and managed appropriately in the context of the Company's business strategies. The Company believes that its goals are best supported by rewarding the Company's named executive officers for outstanding contributions to the Company's success, compensating those officers competitively with similarly situated executive officers, and providing the Company's named executive officers with equity in the Company to encourage and motivate such officers to focus on the long-term growth and success of the Company.
The Company's financial performance remained strong in 2012 despite revenue headwinds resulting from both regulatory changes and the low interest rate environment. Loan balances increased across most categories and deposit growth continued. Credit quality remained solid, our balance sheet and capital ratios remained strong and we maintained our focus on disciplined capital, risk and expense management. The Company outperformed its peers in key financial and operational measures, and achieved top quartile performance on such measures as return on average assets, return on average equity and the stock price to book ratio. During 2012, the Company also repurchased $79.5 million in common stock under its share repurchase program and paid cash dividends of $81.6 million.
For 2012, cash compensation to the CEO and the other named executive officers consisted of base salary and performance-based variable compensation. Long-term and equity-based incentive compensation, used to encourage the named executive officers to focus on the long-term profitable growth of the Company and aligning their interests with those of the shareholders, included restricted stock awards and stock options. The incentive awards made to the CEO and other named executive officers were established taking into account financial performance of the Company and achievement of the performance criteria established by the Compensation Committee described on p
ages 27 through 28.
The Company provides its shareholders with the opportunity to cast an annual advisory vote on executive compensation (a “say-on-pay proposal”). At the Company's Annual Meeting of Shareholders held on April 27, 2012, 95.9% of the votes cast on the say-on-pay proposal at that meeting were in favor of the proposal. The Company believes this affirms shareholders' support of the Company's approach to executive compensation, and did not change its approach in 2012. The Company will continue to consider the outcome of the say-on-pay votes when making future compensation decisions for the named executive officers.
23
Compensation Philosophy
Compensation of our named executive officers, including the CEO, is the responsibility of the Compensation Committee of the Board. The Compensation Committee believes that executive compensation should align with shareholders' interests, pay for performance, maintain a balance between risk and reward, reinforce support for the Company's vision, and be consistent with market compensation trends after taking into account the unique circumstances facing the Company in light of geographic, demographic and economic conditions in the markets served by the Company.
The Compensation Committee also believes that compensation should recognize short and long-term performance and may include both cash and equity components. The composition of components may vary from year to year based on individual, market and other factors. There are no specific formulas to determine the mix of pay elements, or the allocation between cash and non-cash compensation or among non-cash forms of pay.
As described below, neither total compensation nor any element of cash and non-cash compensation is formally benchmarked against a peer group of companies although the peer group data is used as a reference by the Compensation Committee. In making compensation decisions, the Compensation Committee considers individual performance, experience in the position, breadth of duties, and pay parity among positions of comparable responsibility. The Compensation Committee also reviews market data to verify that compensation is competitive and within market ranges.
Compensation Process
The Compensation Committee, consistent with its Charter, determines compensation for the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee, along with the Board, management, and its compensation consultant, undertake a process of linking compensation, corporate strategy and performance in setting and implementing executive compensation. The Compensation Committee determines the corporate goals and objectives relevant to CEO compensation and evaluates the performance of the CEO in light of those goals and objectives. In determining the CEO's long-term compensation, the Compensation Committee considers among other factors, the Company's performance, relative shareholder return, the competitive marketplace, and the awards given to the CEO in past years. With respect to compensation decisions for the other named executive officers, the CEO reviews the performance of each of the other named executive officers, considering similar factors and individual objectives, and provides his recommendations to the Compensation Committee. The Compensation Committee gives significant weight to the recommendations of the CEO.
The Compensation Committee monitors the Company's financial and non-financial performance throughout the year as well as the Company's risk profile and risk management processes to ensure that the Company's compensation policies do not promote unnecessary and excessive risks that may threaten the value of the Company. Several areas are reviewed by the Committee including, but not limited to, how risk management is built into incentive compensation for the Company's executive management, the specific risk profile for a community bank as it relates to loans and investment securities, the controlled and disciplined approach in the compensation structure of the Company, the implementation of new processes with regard to qualitative versus quantitative measures of management performance, and the refinement of best practices.
In January of each year, the Compensation Committee reviews the Company's annual results and the longer-term performance trend compared to the business plan, and uses this review, together with factors as described on pages 27 through 28, as the basis for the annual evaluation of the CEO. The CEO does not attend executive sessions of the Committee where his own compensation is being reviewed and determined by the Compensation Committee or the Board. The Compensation Committee's evaluation is communicated to the CEO by the Lead Independent Director and is discussed with the full Board.
Based on similar factors and individual objectives, including an assessment of effective risk management, the CEO, assisted by the Director of Human Resources (herself not a named executive officer), annually reviews the performance of each of the other named executive officers. The conclusions and recommendations based on those reviews, including any recommendations for salary adjustments, annual awards and equity components, are presented to the Compensation Committee.
The Compensation Committee has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the CEO's recommendations, and to determine the amount of equity and other compensation payable to executives based on its assessment of their performance. Rather than relying on formulaic models, the Compensation Committee believes that retaining discretion to assess
24
performance of the CEO and other named executive officers gives the Compensation Committee members the ability to more accurately reflect individual contributions that cannot be quantified.
The Role of the Compensation Consultant
The Compensation Committee is responsible for retaining its compensation consultant and for determining the terms and conditions, including fees of the engagement. The Compensation Committee determines whether the consultant's services are performed objectively and free from the influence of management. As noted under Director Compensation, the Board's independent compensation consultant Veritas merged with Meridian effective April 1, 2012, and remains the Compensation Committee's compensation consultant, now known as Meridian. The compensation consultant reports directly to the Compensation Committee, takes instructions solely from the Compensation Committee, and performs no other services for the Company. The Compensation Committee Chairman pre-approves all compensation consulting engagements, including the nature, scope and fees of assignments. In 2012, the Compensation Committee considered the factors delineated by the SEC in Rule 10C-1 and determined that Meridian was an independent compensation consultant and that its work did not raise a conflict of interest with the Company.
In 2012, Meridian helped to ensure that the Company's executive compensation practices were competitive, appropriately designed, and were aimed at linking executive compensation to the business and strategic objectives of the Company. It also provided the Compensation Committee with market data and an analysis of competitive compensation for the named executive officers. The Compensation Committee used this data as a “market check” to help assess the competitiveness of the Company's pay practices, but neither total compensation nor any element of compensation paid to the named executive officers is benchmarked against this data. The Compensation Committee did not target the elements of its compensation program at any specific level or percentiles within a peer group.
To complete the analysis, Meridian reviewed named executive officer compensation data from the proxies of banks and other companies similar in size and/or scope to the Company, as well as from published survey sources. Meridian's analysis took into account the competitive quality and appropriateness of the Company's current total compensation arrangements in light of our business objectives, financial performance and market best practices.
The Company's financial performance and compensation practices were compared to two peer groups:
|
1)
|
Bank Peer Group: Bankunited Inc, Capitalsource Inc, Cathay General Bancorp, City National Corp, Commerce Bancshares Inc, Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc, FirstMerit Corp, FNB Corp/FL, Fulton Financial Corp, Glacier Bancorp Inc, Hancock Holding Co, Iberiabank Corp, Intl Bancshares Corp, Investors Bancorp Inc, MB Financial Inc/MD, National Penn Bancshares Inc, Old National Bancorp, Privatebancorp Inc, Prosperity Bancshares Inc, Signature Bank/NY, Sterling Financial Corp/Wa, Susquehanna Bancshares Inc, SVB Financial Group, Texas Capital Bancshares Inc, Trustmark Corp, UMB Financial Corp, Umpqua Holdings Corp, Valley National Bancorp, Webster Financial Corp, and Wintrust Financial Corp; and
|
|
2)
|
Size-Based Peer Group: ACI Worldwide Inc, Align Technology Inc, Choice Hotels Intl Inc, Cirrus Logic Inc, Corporate Executive Brd Co, Dril-Quip Inc, Eagle Materials Inc, Exco Resources Inc, IPG Photonics Corp, Morningstar Inc, Polypore International Inc, Portfolio Recovery Assoc Inc, Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd, South Jersey Industries Inc, and Syntel Inc.
|
These Meridian-recommended peer groups included companies that the Company competes against for products and/or services, competes with for human capital, and is similar to in size and scope. These broad peer groups included direct competitors and organizations with similar business models, and, therefore, provided a relatively meaningful comparison. Meridian reviewed base salary, total cash compensation including annual incentives on both an actual and target basis, and total direct compensation including long-term incentives (both actual and target levels).
The Compensation Committee considered the analyses performed by Meridian in reaching its executive compensation decisions.
25
Compensation Elements and Determination of Compensation
Compensation elements for 2012 included:
|
•
|
Base salary;
|
|
•
|
Performance-based variable compensation;
|
|
•
|
Long-term incentives;
|
|
•
|
Nonqualified deferred compensation;
|
|
•
|
Health, retirement, perquisites, and other compensation.
|
Base Salary
Base salary is based on each individual's responsibilities. The CEO may also consider compensation market survey data provided by Meridian. Base salaries are generally established in connection with recruiting or retaining qualified executive officers. The Compensation Committee reviews salary levels as part of the Company's annual performance review process, as well as upon promotion or other changes in job responsibility. Merit-based increases to salaries for executive officers other than the CEO are determined by the Compensation Committee based on the CEO's assessment of individual performance and his recommendation.
In recommending base salaries the CEO considers the needs of the Company and of the executive officer, internal pay parity among positions of comparable responsibility, and individual performance and contribution to the Company. The Compensation Committee also looks at market survey data to verify that salaries are competitive and within market ranges.
On January 20, 2012, the Committee approved a compensation program (the “Program”) for certain executive officers, providing for a conversion of an identified percentage of their 2012 base salary to restricted shares in the Company, which vests over two to five years. Adoption of the Program resulted in a conversion of the following portions of 2012 base salaries to restricted shares for our named executive officers:
|
•
|
Mr. Ho - $75,000 of $750,000 base salary;
|
|
•
|
Mr. Lucien - $42,500 of $425,000 base salary;
|
|
•
|
Mr. Rossi - $39,000 of $425,000 base salary; and
|
|
•
|
Ms. Sellers - $34,000 of $375,000 base salary.
|
Mr. Hamano did not participate in the Program.
On January 25, 2013, based upon peer group analysis, market data and recommendations by Meridian, the Committee approved, effective April 1, 2013, a base salary increase for Mr. Ho in the amount of $150,000 for a total annual base salary of $900,000; for Mr. Lucien in the amount of $25,000 for a total annual base salary of $450,000; for Mr. Rossi in the amount of $25,000 for a total annual base salary of $450,000; for Ms. Sellers in the amount of $50,000 for a total annual base salary of $425,000; and for Mr. Hamano in the amount of $25,000 for a total annual base salary of $350,000.
Subsequent to the Committee's approval, and in recognition of the prevailing challenges facing the financial industry in 2013, Mr. Ho voluntarily reduced his new annual base salary by 15% to $765,000; Mr. Lucien voluntarily reduced his new annual base salary to $427,500; Mr. Rossi voluntarily reduced his new annual base salary to $427,500; Ms. Sellers voluntarily reduced her new annual base salary to $403,750 and Mr. Hamano voluntarily reduced his new annual base salary award to $332,500. The reductions in the new annual base salaries will be effective April 1, 2013 and will run through the remainder of 2013.
26
Performance-Based Variable Compensation
The named executive officers participate in the Bank of Hawaii Corporation Executive Incentive Plan (the “Executive Incentive Plan”), which is designed to compensate the named executive officers with annual cash awards for optimizing the profitability and growth of the Company. These incentives reward the participants for achieving their individual goals, as well as the Company's goals and link the personal interests of participants with those of the Company's shareholders. The Executive Incentive Plan also provides participants with an incentive for individual performance and teamwork.
For awards that are intended to qualify as performance-based compensation under Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) (see “Tax Considerations” below), the Compensation Committee establishes, at the beginning of an annual performance period, an incentive pool from which incentive awards are paid to participants. The incentive pool is expressed as a percentage of the Company's net income before taxes for the fiscal year. For performance year 2012, the incentive pool was established as an amount equal to 3% of the Company's net income before taxes for the fiscal year.
At the beginning of the performance period, each participating executive is allocated a maximum percentage of the incentive pool. For 2012, the Compensation Committee allocated a maximum of 30% to Mr. Ho, and 14% to each of the other named executive officers. The Compensation Committee exercises its discretion, however, to reduce an executive's actual incentive payment to a dollar amount based on a target award opportunity. A target award opportunity, expressed as a percentage of base salary, is established for each named executive officer at the beginning of the year. The target award opportunity is generally set for performance that meets financial expectations. Each named executive officer's target award opportunity takes into account the executive's position, scope of responsibilities, and individual contribution to the Company. For 2012, the target award opportunity for Mr. Ho was 100% of his base salary, the target award opportunity for Mr. Lucien was 80% of his base salary, and the target award opportunity for each of Messrs. Rossi and Hamano and Ms. Sellers was 70% of base salary. The potential range of annual incentive opportunities, expressed as a percent of base salary, was as follows:
|
Mr. Ho
|
0 - 250%
|
|
|
Mr. Lucien
|
0 - 200%
|
|
|
Messrs. Rossi and Hamano and Ms. Sellers
|
0 - 175%
|
|
In evaluating the CEO’s performance and determining the amount by which the CEO’s incentive pool percentage would be adjusted to arrive at his incentive payment, the Compensation Committee employs a scoring system that assigns to the CEO a weighted score based on satisfaction of specified criteria established at the beginning of the year. The score can range from 1.0 (lowest possible score) to 2.5 (highest possible score) for each of the specified criteria (except the risk criteria carries a maximum score of 2.0). For example, the Compensation Committee assigns a score of 2.5 if the Company’s shareholder value performance (as measured by its Stock Price to Book Ratio vs. Peers) is in the top or 4
th
quartile (the 100
th
percentile), a score of 2.0 if shareholder value performance is in the
3
rd
quartile (the 75
th
percentile), a score of 1.6 if shareholder value performance is in the 2
nd
quartile (the 50
th
percentile), and a score of 1.0 if shareholder value performance is in the 1
st
quartile (the 25
th
percentile). The Company’s shareholder value performance is measured through comparison with the banking companies identified in the S&P Super Composite Regional Bank Index described below.
27
For 2012, the Compensation Committee considered the criteria below. These measures were selected by the Compensation Committee because they represent a balance between financial and qualitative measurements of performance. They are consistent with the strategic direction of the Company and highly correlated to increases in shareholder returns as well as organizational long-term well being. The Compensation Committee revised the performance criteria for the CEO and other named executive officers in 2012 by adding a Strategic Initiative performance measure to the scoring system. This performance measure focused on the Company's performance in several areas including employee engagement; strengthening and deepening customer relationships; strengthening the brand; achievement of operational efficiencies; active and effective capital management and active risk management. Overall, the Company was successful in advancing several of the 2012 company-wide Strategic Initiatives.
|
Score
|
||
|
Financial Performance: Diluted Earnings Per Share as a % of Budget
|
2.00
|
|
|
Shareholder Value: Stock Price to Book Ratio vs. Peers (1)
|
2.50
|
|
|
Risk Management
|
2.00
|
|
|
Community Presence/Reputation
|
2.50
|
|
|
Leadership Development & Succession Planning
|
2.50
|
|
|
Strategic Initiatives
|
2.31
|
|
|
Score
|
13.81
|
|
|
(1)
|
Based on the S&P Super Composite Regional Bank Index less the 9 institutions with assets > $50.0 billion. The Index includes the following banks in order of Price to Book Ratio ranking: Bank of the Ozarks Inc., Tompkins Financial Corporation, First Horizon National Corporation, Simmons First National Corporation, Wilshire Bancorp Inc., Bank of Hawaii Corporation, Pinnacle Financial Partners, Inc., City Holding Co., East West Bancorp, Inc., Commerce Bancshares, Inc., Synovus Financial Corporation, Valley National Bancorp, National Penn Bancshares Inc., Cullen/Frost Bankers Inc., Umpqua Holdings Corporation, Boston Private Financial Holdings, Inc., Trustmark Corporation, Wintrust Financial Corporation, International Bancshares Corp, Texas Capital Bancshares Inc., United Community Banks, Inc., BBCN Bancorp Inc., Webster Financial Corp, Community Bank System Inc., First Financial Bankshares Inc., Hancock Holding Company, Old National Bancorp, Home Bancshares Inc., NBT Bancorp Inc., City National Corporation, Cathay General Bancorp, UMB Financial Corporation, Hanmi Financial Corporation, First Midwest Bancorp Inc., Fulton Financial Corp, Sterling Bancorp, First Bancorp, PacWest Bancorp, Independent Bank Corporation, Signature Bank, First Niagara Financial Group Inc., TCF Financial Corporation, Prosperity Bancshares, Inc., FNB Corporation, BancorpSouth Inc, Columbia Banking System, Inc., Glacier Bancorp, Inc., Westamerica Bancorporation, First Financial Bancorp, PrivateBancorp Inc., Associated Banc-Corp, United Bankshares, Inc., Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc., SVB Financial Group, S&T Bancorp Inc., First Commonwealth Financial Corporation, and FirstMerit Corporation.
|
The specified criteria established for the CEO evaluation are generally not adjusted during the year, except in the Compensation Committee’s discretion, in the event of certain unanticipated events affecting the Company. The Compensation Committee did not make any such adjustments in 2012.
The CEO's award under the Executive Incentive Plan is recommended by a pre-determined grid based on the performance evaluation score. The award is established as a percentage of base salary. For 2012, Mr. Ho's incentive award was $1,375,000.
The incentive amounts payable to each of the other named executive officers is determined by a similar process in evaluating the established performance criteria, but does not include formal scoring. In addition to the established performance criteria, the award takes into account individual business unit objectives, as well as the individual's performance, scope of responsibilities and market data. The CEO makes an initial recommendation to the Compensation Committee as to the final incentive awards for each of the other named executive officers for the Compensation Committee's consideration. The Compensation Committee has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the CEO's recommendations. For 2012, the Compensation Committee accepted and approved the CEO's incentive recommendations for the other named executive officers as follows: Mr. Lucien, $455,000; Mr. Rossi, $455,000; Ms. Sellers, $420,000; and Mr. Hamano, $325,000. The incentive awards for the named executive officers were above target due to the strong performance of the Company in 2012.
In addition to the awards under the Executive Incentive Plan, the Compensation Committee may pay discretionary cash awards to executives. In paying discretionary awards, the Compensation Committee considers recommendations from the CEO, changes in position, and an assessment of individual performance. These cash awards will not qualify as performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). Mr. Hamano received a cash award of $200,000 in 2012 in recognition of his exemplary performance and leadership.
28
Long-Term Incentives
Long-term incentives are intended to encourage decision-making with the long-term interests of the Company in mind, to retain and reward management for the long-term success of the Company and to align the interests of shareholders and executives through the achievement of the Company's strategic business plan. The Company generally uses equity awards, which are an important component of total compensation, to accomplish its long-term incentive objectives. In accordance with the Company's equity compensation plans, the Compensation Committee may grant stock options, restricted stock awards, or restricted stock units.
In early 2011, the Compensation Committee approved a 3-year share appreciation program (the “SAP”), a cash-based performance unit program designed to align the long-term interests of shareholders and executives through risk management and the achievement of earnings growth and stock price appreciation. Performance grants were to be awarded annually, with the number of annual units actually granted depending upon the level of achievement of the performance objectives for the performance year.
Due to stock market volatility, the accounting for the SAP proved to be challenging and would have resulted in deferring more of the expense until the end of the performance period. As a result, the Compensation Committee approved a replacement program to the SAP (the “Replacement Program”) in late 2011. The Replacement Program replaced the cash-based feature of the SAP with a 3-year stock option incentive program. The potential total maximum stock option grants available under the Replacement Program for each participant are divided equally into thirds over the 3-year Replacement Program period and include maximum potential annual grants of 23,333 shares for Mr. Ho, and 15,000 shares each for Messrs. Lucien and Rossi, and Ms. Sellers. Mr. Hamano did not participate in the SAP or the Replacement Program. The stock option grants in 2011 were service-based awards.
The stock option grants in 2012 were service- and performance-based and the performance objectives for 2012 established by the Compensation Committee were as follows: (a) positive net income for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and (b) either (i) return on assets, (ii) return on equity, or (iii) stock price to book ratio vs. peers for the 2012 fiscal year falling within the top two quartiles of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index, which were selected as effective measures of company financial performance. Stock options under the Replacement Program are issued under the Bank of Hawaii Corporation 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan (the “2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan”).
The amount of long-term incentive grant awards under the 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan is subjectively determined, taking into account position and job responsibilities, individual performance, Company performance, future potential contributions to the Company, internal pay parity, and market survey data. In addition, the Compensation Committee may review additional factors to determine the size, frequency and type of long-term incentive grants. These factors may include the tax consequences of the grants to the individual and the Company, accounting impact, potential dilutive effects, potential future stock values and the number of shares remaining available for issuance under the Company's equity incentive plan.
The terms and conditions of awards under the 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan, including the amount, measurement, vesting and payment of such awards, may be conditioned upon certain performance measures and are determined at the discretion of the Compensation Committee. In the case of awards that are intended to comprise qualified performance-based compensation to covered employees under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, the performance measures utilized met the deductibility requirements of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Restricted stock or restricted stock unit awards generally vest based on achievement of one or more performance goals, length of service or both. The performance objectives for 2012 as established by the Compensation Committee were as follows: positive net income for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012 and return on assets, return on equity, or stock price to book ratio vs. peers for the 2012 fiscal year falling within the top two quartiles of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index, which were selected as effective measures of company financial performance. The discussion under “Grants of Plan-Based Awards” and the footnotes to the “Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-End” table disclose the details of the performance criteria that have been used for recent equity awards made to named executive officers.
The Compensation Committee believes that significant ownership of our common stock by our executives directly aligns their interest with those of our shareholders and also helps balance the incentives for risk-taking inherent in equity-based awards. Under the Company's executive stock ownership guidelines, the CEO should own Company common stock having a market value equal to at least five times base salary, vice chairmen should own Company stock having a market
29
value equal to at least two times base salary, and senior executive vice presidents should own Company common stock having a market value equal to at least 1.5 times base salary. Stock ownership includes the value of vested stock options, restricted stock, stock units from qualified plans, and other stock held by the executive. The guidelines provide that the CEO comply with the stock ownership levels within five years of the date that they are hired or promoted to such position within the Company; for all other named executive officers the attainment period is three years. As of December 31, 2012, all of the named executive officers satisfied the stock ownership guidelines.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
The Compensation Committee has adopted the Bank of Hawaii Corporation Executive Deferred Compensation Program (the “Deferred Compensation Program”), a program that offers senior management (including the named executive officers) the ability to defer up to 80% of base salary and/or 100% of incentive amounts under the Executive Incentive Plan in order to allow executives to defer, along with the receipt of such incentive amounts, the income tax liability on such amounts (including any appreciation in value as a result of the deemed investment of such amounts) until payment. This program allows participants to manage their cash flow and estate planning needs.
The Company also maintains the Bank of Hawaii Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan (the “Excess Plan”), a nonqualified supplemental retirement benefits plan that compensates participants for benefits that would otherwise be payable under the Company's Retirement Savings Plan but for certain Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) limitations. The Compensation Committee believes that this plan is important to ensure equitability in retirement funding amounts between those that fall below and above the IRC limitations.
Benefits under the Deferred Compensation Program and the Excess Plan are not directly tied to specific Company performance. The value of these programs is viewed independently by the Compensation Committee from the other pay elements. Gains from longer-term incentives are not included in the determination of nonqualified deferred compensation benefits.
Health, Retirement, Perquisites and Other Compensation
Executive officers are eligible to participate in health and insurance plans, retirement plans, and other benefits generally available to full-time employees. This is consistent with our belief in offering employees basic health and retirement benefits that are competitive in our markets. The retirement programs assist our employees in planning for their retirement income needs. Benefits under our qualified health and retirement plans are not directly tied to specific Company performance. The Compensation Committee regularly reviews the value of benefits. Our employees who meet service requirements are eligible to participate in the Company sponsored Retirement Savings Plan, a tax-qualified defined contribution pension plan. We believe that ongoing perquisites should be limited in scope and value.
Employment Agreements
The Company does not generally have employment agreements with its executives. However, the Compensation Committee has from time to time entered into such agreements with certain of its executives as an incentive to the executive to stay with the Company for a specified period of time. In 2010, with the transition in the Company's leadership, a Retention Agreement for Mr. Lucien was implemented. The terms of the Retention Agreement included: (i) an annual base salary and benefits through January 31, 2013; (ii) participation in the Executive Incentive Plan for calendar years 2010, 2011, and 2012; (iii) participation in the 2010 Cash for Equity Program; and (iv) participation in employee benefit plans, to the extent he was eligible to do so by their terms. In early 2012, the Retention Agreement with Mr. Lucien was amended to extend the separation date to January 31, 2014, to conform other terms to the extended date and, additionally authorizing his participation in the Company's equity-based compensation programs. If Mr. Lucien performs his duties to the Company's satisfaction through January 31, 2014, he will receive a Retention Payment of $425,000. If he voluntarily terminates his employment, he will receive only salary and vested benefits through the effective date of his termination. If Mr. Lucien is terminated for “cause”, he will forfeit all monetary consideration under the Retention Agreement not paid to him as of the termination date.
30
On July 20, 2012, Mr. Hamano entered into an Employment Agreement with the Company providing for (i) an annual base salary and benefits; (ii) participation in employee benefit plans, to the extent he is eligible to do so by their terms; (iii) participation in the Executive Incentive Plan for calendar years 2012 and 2013; (iv) a $250,000 cash bonus payable within 60 days after January 31, 2013; (v) a grant of 10,870 restricted shares of the Company which vests on January 31, 2014, provided that Mr. Hamano is employed by the Company through the January 31, 2014 vesting date and that Company performance objectives relating to the Company's return on assets, return on equity or stock price to book value ratio are achieved; and (vi) a severance payment of $450,000 in the event of a Company initiated separation on or after January 31, 2014.
Change In Control
The Compensation Committee believes that an essential component to protecting and enhancing the best interests of the Company and its shareholders is to provide for the protection of its executive team in the event of a change in control of the Company. Change in control benefits play an important role in attracting and retaining key executives. The payment of such benefits ensures a smooth transition in management following a change in control by giving an executive the incentive to remain with the Company through the transition period, and, in the event the executive's employment is terminated as part of the transition, by compensating the executive with a degree of financial and personal security during a period in which he or she is likely to be unemployed.
The Change in Control Retention Plan (the “Retention Plan”), provides benefits only in the event that a participant's employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the participant for “good reason” within 24 months following a change in control. The Compensation Committee believes that this encourages executives to remain with the Company upon a change in control. The key provisions of the Retention Plan for Vice Chairmen and above are:
|
•
|
Severance benefit - a “two times base salary and bonus” payment which is payable in the month following termination of employment.
|
|
•
|
Payment for non-competition - an additional “one times base salary and bonus” payment that is payable only if the executive complies with the 12-month non-competition restrictions specified under the Retention Plan.
|
|
•
|
In addition to non-competition restrictions, the Retention Plan imposes non-disclosure, non-solicitation and non-disparagement restrictions on participants.
|
In 2009, the Company amended the Retention Plan to limit any payment or benefit under the plan to an amount that would not be subject to Excise Tax even if the benefits would be substantially eliminated as a result of this limit, and to eliminate any tax gross up payments to executives in connection with any payment or benefit under the Retention Plan. The terms of the Company's 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan provide for full acceleration of vesting of restricted stock, restricted stock units, and stock options upon the occurrence of a change in control of the Company. We believe that it is generally appropriate to fully vest equity and incentive-based awards to employees in a change in control transaction because such a transaction may often cut short or reduce the employee's ability to realize value with respect to such awards. Similarly, the Executive Incentive Plan provides that incentive awards will, upon a change in control of the Company, be prorated as though the applicable performance period ended on the change in control date and will be calculated as an amount equal to two times a participant's incentive allocation for the prorated performance period.
Each of the named executive officers participates in the Retention Plan. See the discussion under "Change in Control, Termination, and Other Arrangements" on page 39 for additional information.
Tax Considerations
Section 162(m) of the IRC limits the deductibility of compensation paid to certain executive officers in excess of $1,000,000, but excludes “performance-based compensation” from this limit. In 2012, no compensation paid to our executive officers exceeded the deductibility limit.
31
SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE
The following table summarizes the total compensation paid to or earned by our named executive officers for each of the fiscal years indicated.
|
Name and Principal Position
|
Year
|
Salary
($)(1) |
Bonus
($)(2) |
Stock
Awards ($)(3) |
Option
Awards ($)(4) |
Non-Equity
Incentive Plan Compensation ($)(5) |
Change in
Pension Value and Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Earnings ($)(6) |
All Other
Compensation ($)(7) |
Total
($) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
2012
|
675,000
|
|
—
|
|
1,564,738
|
|
228,897
|
|
1,375,000
|
|
3,798
|
|
122,908
|
|
3,970,341
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chairman of the Board,
|
2011
|
680,768
|
|
—
|
|
75,039
|
|
244,369
|
|
950,000
|
|
1,174
|
|
103,859
|
|
2,055,209
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chief Executive Officer &
|
2010
|
673,078
|
|
—
|
|
1,282,450
|
|
—
|
|
750,000
|
|
586
|
|
85,474
|
|
2,791,588
|
|
|||||||||
|
President
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
2012
|
382,500
|
|
—
|
|
575,980
|
|
147,150
|
|
455,000
|
|
—
|
|
66,836
|
|
1,627,466
|
|
|||||||||
|
Vice Chairman,
|
2011
|
385,768
|
|
—
|
|
42,548
|
|
157,097
|
|
395,000
|
|
—
|
|
64,280
|
|
1,044,693
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chief Financial Officer
|
2010
|
384,270
|
|
200,000
|
|
910,010
|
|
—
|
|
325,000
|
|
—
|
|
56,009
|
|
1,875,289
|
|
|||||||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
2012
|
375,770
|
|
—
|
|
572,162
|
|
147,150
|
|
455,000
|
|
—
|
|
67,430
|
|
1,617,512
|
|
|||||||||
|
Vice Chairman, Chief
|
2011
|
354,000
|
|
—
|
|
39,018
|
|
157,097
|
|
395,000
|
|
—
|
|
63,475
|
|
1,008,590
|
|
|||||||||
|
Administrative Officer,
|
2010
|
364,616
|
|
200,000
|
|
776,185
|
|
—
|
|
325,000
|
|
—
|
|
60,225
|
|
1,726,026
|
|
|||||||||
|
General Counsel, &
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Corporate Secretary
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
2012
|
330,769
|
|
—
|
|
566,913
|
|
147,150
|
|
420,000
|
|
9,808
|
|
50,009
|
|
1,524,649
|
|
|||||||||
|
Vice Chairman,
|
2011
|
308,615
|
|
—
|
|
34,038
|
|
157,097
|
|
360,000
|
|
19,638
|
|
44,155
|
|
923,543
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chief Risk Officer
|
2010
|
331,461
|
|
200,000
|
|
776,185
|
|
—
|
|
290,000
|
|
3,988
|
|
40,959
|
|
1,642,593
|
|
|||||||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano,
|
2012
|
310,097
|
|
200,000
|
|
503,607
|
|
—
|
|
325,000
|
|
5,237
|
|
66,100
|
|
1,410,041
|
|
|||||||||
|
Vice Chairman,
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chief Commercial Officer
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
(1)
|
Messrs. Ho and Lucien received no fees or compensation for their services on the Board of Directors.
|
|
(2)
|
Mr. Hamano's 2012 bonus was in recognition of his exemplary performance and leadership. Messrs. Lucien, Rossi, and Ms. Sellers participated in the Cash for Equity Program in 2010. In 2008, the Company approved a Cash for Equity Program to augment equity-based compensation. The goals of the Program were to facilitate stock accumulation, simplify compensation and foster long-term employment by encouraging participants to use the cash to purchase the Company's common stock.
|
|
(3)
|
This column represents the aggregate grant date fair value of restricted stock granted to each of the named executive officers in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") Topic 718, "Compensation - Stock Compensation." Restricted stock awards are valued at the closing price of the Company's common stock on the date of grant.
|
|
(4)
|
This column represents the aggregate grant date fair value of stock options granted to the named executive officers in accordance with ASC 718. The fair value of each stock option award was estimated on the grant date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The assumptions used in determining the grant date fair value for share-based compensation are described in the Company's 2012 Annual Report on Form 10-K in Note 15, Share-Based Compensation.
|
|
(5)
|
All amounts reported under this column relate to awards earned under the Executive Incentive Plan.
|
|
(6)
|
Messrs. Ho and Hamano and Ms. Sellers are the only named executive officers who are participants under the Employees’ Retirement Plan of Bank of Hawaii, which was frozen at the end of 1995.
|
|
(7)
|
The All Other Compensation Table that follows provides additional detail regarding the amounts in this column.
|
32
ALL OTHER COMPENSATION TABLE
The following table sets forth a breakdown of All Other Compensation paid to or earned by our named executive officers for each of the fiscal years indicated.
|
Bank of
Hawaii Retirement Savings Plan 401(k) Matching Contribution ($)(1) |
Bank of
Hawaii Value Sharing Funding ($)(2) |
Bank of
Hawaii Excess Plan Value Sharing Funding ($)(3) |
Bank of
Hawaii Retirement Savings Plan Company Fixed Contribution ($)(4) |
Bank of
Hawaii Excess Plan Company Fixed Contribution ($)(5) |
Term Life
Insurance ($)(6) |
Other
Compensation ($)(7) |
Total All
Other Compensation ($) |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
2012
|
10,000
|
|
6,980
|
|
38,391
|
|
7,500
|
|
41,250
|
|
—
|
|
18,787
|
|
122,908
|
|
||||||||
|
2011
|
9,800
|
|
6,206
|
|
30,037
|
|
7,350
|
|
35,573
|
|
1,062
|
|
13,831
|
|
103,859
|
|
|||||||||
|
2010
|
9,800
|
|
6,101
|
|
21,866
|
|
7,350
|
|
26,342
|
|
1,080
|
|
12,935
|
|
85,474
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
2012
|
10,000
|
|
6,980
|
|
14,728
|
|
7,500
|
|
15,825
|
|
—
|
|
11,803
|
|
66,836
|
|
||||||||
|
2011
|
9,800
|
|
6,206
|
|
11,798
|
|
7,350
|
|
13,973
|
|
1,754
|
|
13,399
|
|
64,280
|
|
|||||||||
|
2010
|
9,800
|
|
6,101
|
|
6,157
|
|
7,350
|
|
7,418
|
|
1,703
|
|
17,480
|
|
56,009
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
2012
|
10,000
|
|
6,980
|
|
14,540
|
|
7,500
|
|
15,623
|
|
—
|
|
12,787
|
|
67,430
|
|
||||||||
|
2011
|
9,800
|
|
6,206
|
|
10,994
|
|
7,350
|
|
13,020
|
|
2,435
|
|
13,670
|
|
63,475
|
|
|||||||||
|
2010
|
9,800
|
|
6,101
|
|
8,357
|
|
7,350
|
|
10,068
|
|
2,475
|
|
16,074
|
|
60,225
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
2012
|
10,000
|
|
6,980
|
|
12,306
|
|
7,500
|
|
13,223
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
50,009
|
|
||||||||
|
2011
|
9,800
|
|
6,206
|
|
8,957
|
|
7,350
|
|
10,608
|
|
1,234
|
|
—
|
|
44,155
|
|
|||||||||
|
2010
|
9,800
|
|
6,101
|
|
7,681
|
|
7,350
|
|
9,254
|
|
773
|
|
—
|
|
40,959
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
2012
|
10,000
|
|
6,980
|
|
14,661
|
|
7,500
|
|
15,753
|
|
—
|
|
11,206
|
|
66,100
|
|
||||||||
|
(1)
|
This column represents the Company match of an individual’s salary deferral contributions to the Retirement Savings Plan, a qualified defined contribution pension plan, subject to the Internal Revenue Code prescribed limit (which in 2012 was limited to $250,000 of eligible compensation), and is available to all eligible employees. The Company makes a matching contribution of $1.25 for each dollar of employee contribution up to 2% of eligible compensation, and a $0.50 matching contribution for every dollar of employee contribution above 2% and up to 5% of eligible compensation.
|
|
(2)
|
For 2012, the total profit-sharing funding, or “Value Sharing Funding,” equaled 2.79% of eligible compensation. The funding is allocated in the following manner and made available to all eligible employees: 1) a portion of the funding is allocated in cash, 2) to the extent permitted by IRS ($250,000 in 2012) and Plan provisions, a portion is contributed to the Retirement Savings Plan (“Plan”), and 3) if an employee’s contribution to the Plan is limited by IRS regulations or Plan provisions, the excess portion is contributed to the Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan (column 3). Column 2 represents the sum of the cash portion and the portion contributed to the Plan. For 2012, the cash portion was $1,230 for all named executive officers. The cash portion is based upon a formula using 80% of the Social Security wage maximum and is available to all eligible employees. The Social Security wage maximum was $110,100 in 2012. The value sharing amount contributed to the Plan for all named executive officers was $5,750 in 2012.
|
|
(3)
|
If an employee’s contribution to the Plan is limited by IRS regulations or Plan provisions, the excess portion is distributed to the Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan and is reflected in this column.
|
|
(4)
|
For 2012, the Company's Fixed Contribution to the Retirement Savings Plan equaled 3% of eligible compensation, subject to the same Internal Revenue Code prescribed limits, and is available to all eligible employees.
|
|
(5)
|
For 2012, the Company's Fixed Contribution to the Retirement Savings Plan equaled 3% of eligible compensation. This column represents the Company's Fixed Contribution in excess of the Internal Revenue Code prescribed limits that is paid into the Excess Plan, and is available to all eligible employees.
|
|
(6)
|
This column includes the portion of life insurance premiums paid by the Company. The beneficiaries on these insurance policies are named by each named executive officer.
|
|
(7)
|
For 2012, this column includes the value of perquisites for Messrs. Ho, Lucien, Rossi, and Hamano, which include club membership dues, car services, spouse travel, and home security for Mr. Ho.
|
33
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION
Executive Deferred Compensation Program
The Company’s Executive Deferred Compensation Program (the “Deferred Compensation Program”) is a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that allows senior management (including the named executive officers) to defer up to 80% of their base salary earned for a specified year through the Executive Base Salary Deferral Plan (the “Salary Deferral Plan”), and to defer up to 100% of incentive payments under the Executive Incentive Plan. In 2012, no named executive officer deferred amounts under the Deferred Compensation Program.
A participant is always 100% vested in his or her deferred amounts. Deferred amounts under the Deferred Compensation Program are subject to adjustment for appreciation or depreciation in value based on hypothetical investments in one or more investment funds or vehicles permitted by the Compensation Committee and chosen by the participant. A participant’s deferred amounts are generally payable beginning on the earliest to occur of the following: (a) a specified time chosen by the participant, or if none, the date that is six months following a separation from service, (b) the participant’s death, (c) the participant’s disability or (d) an “unforeseeable emergency” (generally, a severe financial hardship resulting from the illness of the participant or his or her spouse or dependent, or other extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances arising from events beyond the control of the participant). Distributions in the event of an unforeseeable emergency are subject to restrictions and are limited to an amount that is reasonably necessary to satisfy the emergency need. For distributions upon a separation from service or at a specified time chosen by a participant, the participant may choose to receive deferred amounts as a lump sum cash payment or in annual installments over a period not to exceed five years. The amount of each installment will be calculated using the “declining balance method," under which each installment payment is determined by dividing a participant’s aggregate unpaid balance by the remaining years in the payment period. For distributions resulting from all other events, payment will be made as a lump sum cash payment.
The Company's obligations with respect to deferred amounts under the Salary Deferral Plan and the Executive Incentive Plan are payable from its general assets, although the Company has established a rabbi trust to assist it in meeting its liabilities under the plans. The assets of the trust are at all times subject to the claims of the Company’s general creditors.
Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan
The Retirement Savings Excess Benefit Plan (the “Excess Benefit Plan”) is a nonqualified supplemental retirement benefits plan that compensates participants for the amount of benefits that would otherwise be payable under the Company’s Retirement Savings Plan but for limitations under Internal Revenue Code Sections 415 and 401(a)(17) as to the amount of annual contributions to, and annual benefits payable under, the Retirement Savings Plan. A participant’s accrued benefits under the Excess Benefit Plan are hypothetically invested in one or more funds permitted by the Plan and chosen by the participant, and are adjusted for appreciation or depreciation in value attributable to such hypothetical investments.
For an individual who first becomes a participant in the Excess Benefit Plan after May 19, 2006, the plan provides that benefits are payable upon a separation from service according to a distribution schedule that is determined by reference to the total amount accrued for the individual under the plan. A participant with:
|
•
|
$100,000 or less in deferred amounts will receive a lump sum payment six months after separation from service;
|
|
•
|
more than $100,000 but no more than $300,000 in deferred amounts will receive distributions in two installments;
|
|
•
|
more than $300,000 but no more than $500,000 in deferred amounts will receive distributions in three installments; and
|
|
•
|
more than $500,000 in deferred amounts will receive distributions in five installments.
|
In each case, the first installment will be paid on the first day of the seventh month following separation from service and subsequent installments will be paid in each subsequent January. An individual who first became a participant in the Excess Benefit Plan on or prior to May 19, 2006 will receive benefits upon the participant’s separation from service and may have elected to be paid as follows: (a) according to the distribution schedule applicable to individuals who become participants after May 19, 2006, (b) in a lump sum on the first day of the seventh month following separation from service, or
34
(c) in annual installments (not to exceed five) commencing on the first day of the seventh month following separation from service or commencing on an anniversary of the participant’s separation from service (not later than the fifth anniversary). The amount of each installment will be calculated using the declining balance method. If a participant dies prior to the full distribution of his or her deferred amounts, any unpaid amounts remaining will be distributed in a lump sum.
The Company’s obligations under the Excess Benefit Plan are payable from its general assets, although the Company has established a rabbi trust to assist it in meeting its liabilities under the Plan. The assets of the trust are at all times subject to the claims of the Company’s general creditors.
Set forth below is information regarding the amounts deferred by or for the benefit of the named executive officers in 2012.
NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION TABLE FOR 2012
|
Name
|
Executive
Contributions In Last Fiscal Year ($)(1) |
Registrant
Contributions In Last Fiscal Year ($)(2) |
Aggregate
Earnings in Last Fiscal Year ($) |
Aggregate
Withdrawals or Distributions in Last Fiscal Year ($) |
Aggregate
Balance at Last Fiscal Year-End ($)(3) |
|||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
—
|
|
79,641
|
7,015
|
—
|
|
349,013
|
|||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
—
|
|
30,553
|
5,923
|
—
|
|
311,569
|
|||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
—
|
|
30,163
|
2,216
|
—
|
|
96,053
|
|||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
—
|
|
25,529
|
2,814
|
—
|
|
128,435
|
|||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
—
|
|
30,414
|
2,169
|
—
|
|
98,994
|
|||||
(1)
During 2012, none of the named executive officers deferred any compensation under the Deferred Compensation Program. The table below shows the Vanguard funds deemed available for selection by participants under the Deferred Compensation Program and their annual rate of return for the calendar year ended December 31, 2012, as reported by the administrator of the Deferred Compensation Program.
|
Name of Fund
|
Rate of
Return |
Name of Fund
|
Rate of
Return |
|||||
|
500 Index Fund Inv
|
15.82
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2020
|
12.35
|
%
|
|||
|
Emerging Markets Stock Index Inv
|
18.64
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2025
|
13.29
|
%
|
|||
|
Explorer Fund Investor
|
14.89
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2030
|
14.24
|
%
|
|||
|
Growth Equity Fund
|
14.99
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2035
|
15.16
|
%
|
|||
|
High-Yield Corp Fund Inv
|
14.36
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2040
|
15.56
|
%
|
|||
|
International Growth Inv
|
20.01
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2045
|
15.58
|
%
|
|||
|
Mid-Cap Growth Fund
|
14.84
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2050
|
15.58
|
%
|
|||
|
Mid-Cap Index Fund Inv
|
15.80
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2055
|
15.58
|
%
|
|||
|
Prime Money Market Fund
|
0.04
|
%
|
Target Retirement 2060
|
**
|
|
|||
|
Selected Value Fund
|
15.25
|
%
|
Target Retirement Income
|
8.23
|
%
|
|||
|
Short-Term Federal Inv
|
1.44
|
%
|
Total Bond Market Index Inv
|
4.05
|
%
|
|||
|
Small-Cap Index Fund Inv
|
18.04
|
%
|
Wellington Fund Inv
|
12.57
|
%
|
|||
|
Target Retirement 2010
|
10.12
|
%
|
Windsor Fund Investor
|
20.78
|
%
|
|||
|
Target Retirement 2015
|
11.37
|
%
|
||||||
**
Fund is less than one year old - no return data.
|
(2)
|
These amounts represent Excess Benefit Plan contributions by the Company for fiscal year 2012 which were paid in 2013 and accordingly are not included in the Aggregate Balance at Last Fiscal Year-End column. See columns 3 and 5 of the “All Other Compensation Table” for additional details.
|
|
(3)
|
A portion of each amount listed in this column has been reported in the "Summary Compensation Table" in prior years' proxy statements and the years in which the named executive officer appeared in these prior proxy statements. The amounts previously reported are as follows: Mr. Ho, $288,741; Mr. Lucien, $42,415; Mr. Rossi, $60,917; and Ms. Sellers, $71,958.
|
35
GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS IN 2012
The following table summarizes the equity-based awards granted in 2012 to the named executive officers in the Summary Compensation Table.
|
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
Estimated Future Payouts
Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards |
All Other
Stock Awards; Number of Shares of Stock or
Units
(#)
|
All Other
Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying
Options(#)
|
Exercise
or Base Price of Option
Awards
($/Sh)
|
Grant
Date Fair Value of Stock and Option
Awards
($)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name
|
Type of Award(1)
|
Grant
Date |
Threshold
($) |
Target
($) |
Maximum
($) |
Threshold
(#) |
Target
(#)(2)(3) |
Maximum
(#)(2)(3) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
SRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
1,670
|
|
(4)
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
79,692
|
|
|||||||||
|
PRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
31,120
|
|
31,120
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
1,485,046
|
|
|||||||||||
|
PSO
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
23,333
|
|
23,333
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
47.72
|
|
228,897
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
SRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
950
|
|
(5)
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
45,334
|
|
|||||||||
|
PRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
11,120
|
|
11,120
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
530,646
|
|
|||||||||||
|
PSO
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
15,000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
47.72
|
|
147,150
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
SRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
870
|
|
(4)
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
41,516
|
|
|||||||||||
|
PRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
11,120
|
|
11,120
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
530,646
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
PSO
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
15,000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
47.72
|
|
147,150
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
SRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
760
|
|
(4)
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
36,267
|
|
|||||||||
|
PRS
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
11,120
|
|
11,120
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
530,646
|
|
|||||||||||
|
PSO
|
1/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
15000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
47.72
|
|
147,150
|
|
|||||||||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
PRS
|
7/20/12
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
10,870
|
|
10,870
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
503,607
|
|
||||||||||
|
(1)
|
Type of Award:
|
SRS - Service-Based Restricted Stock
PRS - Performance-Based Restricted Stock
PSO - Performance-Based Stock Options
|
(2)
|
Performance-based restricted stock was granted, of which one third are Service Shares, one third are First Tier Shares, and one third are Second Tier Shares, which vests in one third increments on February 28, 2013, December 31, 2013, and December 31, 2014, provided service and performance criteria are met. Each of the restricted share components vests provided the grantee remains an employee of the Company through each respective vesting date and the Company achieved positive net income in 2012. The First Tier Shares vest provided the Company's return on assets, or return on equity, or stock price to book ratio falls within the top two quartiles of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index that has been designated by the Compensation Committee. The Second Tier Shares vest provided the Company's return on assets, or return on equity, or stock price to book ratio falls within the top quartile of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index that has been designated by the Compensation Committee.
|
|
(3)
|
Pursuant to the Replacement Program described on pa
ge 29, performance-based stock options were granted, of which one third are Service Shares, one third are First Tier Shares, and one third are Second Tier S
hares, which vests on February 28, 2013, provided service and performance criteria are met. The Service Shares vest provided the grantee remains an employee of the Company through December 31, 2012 and the Company has achieved positive net income for 2012. The First Tier Shares vest provided the Company's return on assets, return on equity, or stock price to book ratio falls within the top two quartiles of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index that has been designated by the Compensation Committee. The Second Tier Shares vest provided the Company's return on assets, return on equity, or stock price to book ratio compared to peer banks falls within the top quartile of the 2012 Regional Bank Index or the 2012 U.S. Bank Index that has been designated by the Compensation Committee.
|
|
(4)
|
In lieu of a portion of their base salary, restricted stock was granted which vests 20% per year for five years on the last business day in January beginning January 31, 2013, provided the grantee remains an employee of the Company through each respective vesting date.
|
|
(5)
|
In lieu of a portion of his base salary, Mr. Lucien was granted restricted stock which vests 20% on January 31, 2013, and 80% on January 31, 2014 provided he remains an employee of the Company through each respective vesting date.
|
36
OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT FISCAL YEAR-END
The following table presents a summary of unexercised stock options and restricted stock awards held as of December 31, 2012 by the named executive officers in the Summary Compensation Table.
|
Option Awards
|
Stock Awards
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Name
|
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Exercisable (#) |
Number of
Securities Underlying Unexercised Options Unexercisable (#) |
Equity
Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Unearned Options (#)(1) |
Option
Exercise Price ($) |
Option
Expiration Date |
Number of
Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested (#) |
Market
Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(4) |
Equity
Incentive Plan Awards: Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested (#) |
Equity
Incentive Plan Awards: Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested ($)(4) |
|||||||||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
54,919
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
50.72
|
|
12/16/15
|
1,241
|
|
(2)
|
54,666
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||||||||
|
23,333
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
42.22
|
|
11/18/21
|
1,670
|
|
(3)
|
73,564
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
|||||||||
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
23,333
|
|
47.72
|
|
1/20/22
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
31,120
|
|
(5)
|
1,370,836
|
|
|||||||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
2,191
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
54.31
|
|
4/28/16
|
704
|
|
(2)
|
31,011
|
|
11,120
|
|
(5)
|
489,836
|
|
|||||||
|
15,000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
42.22
|
|
11/18/21
|
950
|
|
(3)
|
41,848
|
|
5,667
|
|
(6)
|
249,631
|
|
||||||||
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
47.72
|
|
1/20/22
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||||||||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
15,000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
42.22
|
|
11/18/21
|
645
|
|
(2)
|
28,412
|
|
11,120
|
|
(5)
|
489,836
|
|
|||||||
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
47.72
|
|
1/20/22
|
870
|
|
(3)
|
38,324
|
|
4,833
|
|
(6)
|
212,894
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
9,500
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
32.89
|
|
4/28/13
|
563
|
|
(2)
|
24,800
|
|
11,120
|
|
(5)
|
489,836
|
|
|||||||
|
21,490
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
50.72
|
|
12/16/15
|
760
|
|
(3)
|
33,478
|
|
4,833
|
|
(6)
|
212,894
|
|
||||||||
|
15,000
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
42.22
|
|
11/18/21
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||||||||||
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
15,000
|
|
47.72
|
|
1/20/22
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
||||||||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
4,776
|
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
50.72
|
|
12/16/15
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
10,870
|
|
(7)
|
478,824
|
|
||||||||
|
(1)
|
The stock options in this column had a vesting date of February 28, 2013, subject to performance-based vesting conditions. On February 28, 2013, all stock options in this column vested.
|
|
(2)
|
These shares of restricted stock vest based on service conditions. A total of 1,318 shares vested for named executive officers on January 31, 2013.
Future vesting dates are January 31, 2014, January 31, 2015, and January 31, 2016 or the next business day if the vesting date falls on a weekend or holiday.
|
|
(3)
|
These shares of restricted stock vest based on service conditions. A total of 850 shares vested for named executive officers on January 31, 2013.
Future vesting dates are January 31, 2014, January 30, 2015, January 29, 2016, and January 31, 2017.
|
|
(4)
|
The amounts in these columns are based on the closing stock price of Bank of Hawaii Corporation’s common stock on December 31, 2012 of $44.05.
|
|
(5)
|
These are performance-based restricted stock. A t
otal of 21,498 shares vested for named executive officers on February 28, 2013. Future vesting dates are December 31, 2013 and December 31, 2014.
|
|
(6)
|
These are performance-based restricted stock. All restricted shares vested on January 31, 2013.
|
|
(7)
|
These are performance-based restricted stock grants which vests on January 31, 2014.
|
37
OPTION EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED IN 2012
The following table includes values realized for stock options exercised, the vesting of restricted stock, and the payouts on performance-based restricted stock units in 2012. For further information on the vesting criteria for these restricted stock awards see the table “Outstanding Equity Awards At Fiscal Year-End.”
|
Option Awards
|
Stock Awards
|
|||||||||
|
Name
|
Number of Shares
Acquired on Exercise (#) |
Value Realized
on Exercise ($)(1) |
Number of Shares
Acquired on Vesting (#) |
Value Realized
on Vesting ($)(2) |
||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
2,916
|
|
56,483
|
|
15,311
|
700,019
|
||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
6,780
|
309,982
|
||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
—
|
|
—
|
|
6,015
|
275,174
|
||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
4,000
|
|
77,480
|
|
6,734
|
308,195
|
||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
5,142
|
|
59,184
|
|
566
|
26,036
|
||||
|
(1)
|
Value determined by subtracting the exercise price per share from the market value per share of our common stock on the date of exercise and multiplying the difference by the number of shares acquired on exercise.
|
|
(2)
|
Value determined by multiplying the number of vested shares by the closing market price per share of our common stock on the vesting date, or on the next business day in the event the vesting date was not on a business day.
|
EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION
The following table contains information with respect to all of the Company’s compensation plans (including individual compensation arrangements) under which securities are authorized for issuance as of December 31, 2012.
|
Plan Category
|
Number of Securities
to be issued upon exercise of outstanding options, warrants and rights (#)(A) |
Weighted average
exercise price of outstanding options, warrants and rights ($)(B) |
Number of securities
remaining available for future issuance under equity compensation plans (excluding securities reflected in column(A)) (#)(C) |
||||
|
Equity compensation plans approved by security holders
|
1,085,941
|
44.17
|
|
2,775,725
|
|||
PENSION BENEFITS
The Employees’ Retirement Plan of Bank of Hawaii (the “Retirement Plan”) provides retirement benefits for eligible employees based on the employee’s years of service and average annual salary during the 60 consecutive months resulting in the highest average salary (excluding overtime, incentive plan payouts, and discretionary cash awards). The Retirement Plan was frozen as of December 31, 1995, except that for the five-year period commencing January 1, 1996, benefits for certain eligible participants were increased in proportion to the increase in the participant’s average annual salary. As of December 31, 2000, the benefits under the Retirement Plan were completely frozen and not subject to increase for any additional years of service or increase in average annual salary. Mr. Ho, Ms. Sellers, and Mr. Hamano are the only named executive officers who are participants in the Retirement Plan. A summary of their benefits are listed below:
|
Name
|
Plan Name
|
Number of Years
of Credited Service (#) |
Present Value of
Accumulated Benefits ($) |
Payments
During Last Fiscal Year ($) |
|||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
Employees’ Retirement Plan of Bank of Hawaii
|
2
|
10,016
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
Employees’ Retirement Plan of Bank of Hawaii
|
7
|
69,671
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
Employees’ Retirement Plan of Bank of Hawaii
|
3
|
36,595
|
—
|
|
||||
38
CHANGE IN CONTROL, TERMINATION, AND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS
Bank of Hawaii’s Change in Control Retention Plan (the “Retention Plan”) provides a participant with benefits in the event that the participant’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the participant for “good reason” within 24 months following a change in control of the Company. All of the current named executive officers are participants in the Retention Plan. Two levels of benefits are payable to participants in the Retention Plan, with executives holding the position of Vice Chairman or above being eligible for the higher tier of benefits. Messrs. Ho, Lucien, Rossi, and Hamano, and Ms. Sellers are eligible for the higher tier of benefits (described in the table below). In consideration of the benefits payable under the Retention Plan, participants are, for 12 months following termination of employment, subject to non-disclosure, non-competition (generally with respect to any other financial institution doing business in Hawaii), non-solicitation of business and employees, and non-disparagement restrictions.
In 2009, the Company amended the Retention Plan to limit any payment or benefit under the plan to an amount that would not be subject to Excise Tax even if the benefits would be substantially eliminated as a result of this limit, and to eliminate any tax gross up payments to executives in connection with any payment or benefit under the Plan.
Under the Retention Plan, a “change in control” will be deemed to have occurred if:
|
•
|
any person or group becomes the beneficial owner of 25% or more of the combined voting power of the Company’s securities that are entitled to vote for the election of directors;
|
|
•
|
a reorganization, merger or consolidation of the Company or the sale of substantially all of its assets occurs (excluding a transaction in which beneficial owners of the Company immediately prior to the transaction continue to own more than 60% of the total outstanding stock of the resulting entity and of the combined voting power of the entity’s securities that are entitled to vote for the election of directors); or
|
|
•
|
individuals who constituted the Board of Directors as of April 30, 2004 cease to constitute a majority of the Board, including as a result of actual or threatened election contests or through consents by or on behalf of a party other than the Board (but disregarding directors whose nomination or election was approved by at least a majority of the directors as of April 30, 2004 or other directors approved by them).
|
A participant is deemed to have “good reason” if one or more of the following occur after a change in control without the participant’s written consent:
|
•
|
a material reduction in the participant’s base salary, authority, duties or responsibilities, or in the budget over which the participant has authority;
|
|
•
|
a material reduction in the authority, duties or responsibilities of the participant’s supervisor;
|
|
•
|
the participant is required to relocate to a different Hawaiian Island for employment or to a place more than 50 miles from the participant’s base of employment immediately prior to the change in control; or
|
|
•
|
any other action or inaction that constitutes a material breach by the Company of the Retention Plan or the participant’s employment agreement.
|
The terms of the Company’s 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan provide for full acceleration of vesting of restricted stock, restricted stock units, and stock options upon the occurrence of a change in control of the Company. Similarly, the Executive Incentive Plan provides that incentive awards will, upon a change in control of the Company, be prorated as though the applicable performance period ended on the change in control date, and will be calculated as an amount equal to two times a participant’s incentive allocation for the prorated performance period.
39
The table below sets forth the benefits that would have been payable to each of the named executive officers had a qualifying termination occurred under the terms of the Retention Plan or plans with change in control provisions on December 31, 2012.
|
Base Salary
and Bonus Payment(1)(8) |
Executive
Incentive Plan Payment(2)(8) |
Health
Benefits(3) |
Outplacement(4)
|
Relocation
Payment(5) |
Acceleration
of Restricted Stock(6)(8) |
Non-
competition Payment(7) |
Total
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Peter S. Ho
|
|
$3,000,000
|
|
|
$1,350,000
|
|
|
$44,683
|
|
|
$22,661
|
|
|
$150,000
|
|
|
$1,499,066
|
|
|
$1,500,000
|
|
|
$7,566,410
|
|
||||||||
|
Kent T. Lucien
|
|
$1,530,000
|
|
|
$612,000
|
|
|
$37,800
|
|
|
$22,661
|
|
|
$150,000
|
|
|
$562,695
|
|
|
$765,000
|
|
|
$3,680,156
|
|
||||||||
|
Mark A. Rossi
|
|
$1,326,000
|
|
|
$540,400
|
|
|
$29,788
|
|
|
$22,661
|
|
|
$150,000
|
|
|
$556,572
|
|
|
$663,000
|
|
|
$3,288,421
|
|
||||||||
|
Mary E. Sellers
|
|
$1,159,400
|
|
|
$477,400
|
|
|
$29,788
|
|
|
$22,661
|
|
|
$150,000
|
|
|
$548,114
|
|
|
$579,700
|
|
|
$2,967,063
|
|
||||||||
|
Wayne Y. Hamano
|
|
$1,105,000
|
|
|
$455,000
|
|
|
$44,683
|
|
|
$22,661
|
|
|
$150,000
|
|
|
$478,824
|
|
|
$552,500
|
|
|
$2,808,668
|
|
||||||||
|
(1)
|
Under the Retention Plan, participants who hold the position of Vice Chairman or above would be entitled to the sum of (a) two times the participant’s highest annual base salary in the three fiscal years preceding termination of employment (the “Highest Base Salary”), and (b) two times the product of the participant’s annual bonus target percentage under the Executive Incentive Plan in the year of termination and the participant’s Highest Base Salary. Amounts would be payable in a lump sum in the month following termination unless the participant is a “key employee” as defined in Treasury Regulation Section 416(i)(1)(A)(i), (ii) or (iii), in which case amounts would be payable in a lump sum on the first day of the seventh month following termination.
|
|
(2)
|
The Executive Incentive Plan provides that upon a change in control of the Company, a participant who would otherwise be entitled to a final award for a performance period ending after the date of the change in control will be entitled to an amount equal to two times the participant’s annual bonus target percentage under the plan (calculated based on the participant’s annualized salary), pro-rated to the number of months elapsed in the applicable performance period. The final award would be paid within ten days after the end of the shortened performance period.
|
|
(3)
|
In lieu of Company-paid health benefits, Retention Plan participants who hold the position of Vice Chairman or above would be entitled to an amount equal to three times the cost of annual COBRA premiums for the medical, dental and vision plan coverage that was provided to the participant immediately prior to termination (or coverage provided to employees generally if the participant was not covered by the Company’s health plans prior to termination). Amounts would be payable in a lump sum as described in (1) above.
|
|
(4)
|
Under the Retention Plan, participants who hold the position of Vice Chairman or above would be entitled to reimbursement for outplacement expenses not to exceed $20,000 (adjusted for inflation after 2007).
|
|
(5)
|
For participants who hold the position of Vice Chairman or above, the Retention Plan provides for reimbursement of reasonable moving expenses incurred by the participant within 24 months following a qualifying termination (to the extent not reimbursed by another employer). The maximum reimbursement for real estate transaction expenses shall not exceed $100,000 and the maximum reimbursement for all other reasonable moving expenses shall not exceed $50,000.
|
|
(6)
|
Under the 2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan, a change in control would accelerate the lapsing of restrictions applicable to any restricted stock, restricted stock units, and stock options granted under such plan.
|
|
(7)
|
Under the Retention Plan, a participant who holds the position of Vice Chairman or above is eligible to receive an amount equal to the sum of (a) one times the participant’s Highest Base Salary, and (b) the product of the participant’s annual bonus target percentage under the Executive Incentive Plan in the year of termination and the participant’s Highest Base Salary, provided that the participant refrains from competing against the Company (generally with respect to any other financial institution doing business in Hawaii) and also complies with the non-solicitation, non-disclosures and non-disparagement provisions of the plan for twelve months following the date of termination. The payment described in this section would be paid in a lump sum in the thirteenth month following termination.
|
|
(8)
|
In 2009, the Company amended the Retention Plan to limit any payment or benefit under the plan to an amount that would not be subject to Excise Tax even if the benefits would be substantially eliminated as a result of this limit. Under the terms of the Retention Plan, if it is determined that any payment or benefit would be subject to Excise Tax, then the benefit payments will be reduced first from equity compensation and then from salary and bonus to the extent that the value of the reduced benefit payments will not be subject to any Excise Tax.
|
SECTION 16(a) BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP REPORTING COMPLIANCE
Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company to disclose late filings of reports of ownership (and changes in stock ownership) of Bank of Hawaii Corporation common stock by its directors and certain officers. To our knowledge, based on review of the copies of such reports received by the Company and the written representations of its directors and officers, the Company believes that all of its directors and officers complied timely with those filing requirements for 2012, with the exception of the Company filing:
|
•
|
One late report for one transaction for each of S. Haunani Apoliona, Mary G.F. Bitterman, Mark A. Burak, Michael J. Chun, Clinton R. Churchill, David A. Heenan, and Martin A. Stein; and
|
|
•
|
Two late reports for two transactions for each of Robert Huret, Donald M. Takaki, Barbara J. Tanabe, and Robert Wo.
|
In each such case, the late filings were a result of administrative errors and the reports were promptly filed with the SEC when the errors were discovered.
40
CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS
The Company has written ethics and business conduct policies and procedures to monitor and approve related party transactions, including procedures related to any loans the Company makes to executive officers and directors. The Company also conducts ethics training for its officers and directors. In accordance with applicable NYSE listing standards, each related party transaction is reviewed and evaluated by an appropriate group, generally the Audit & Risk Committee, to determine whether a particular relationship serves the best interest of the Company and its shareholders and whether the relationship should be continued. The Company also has adopted a written Code of Business Conduct and Ethics (the “Code”) for all directors, officers and employees to address, among other topics, possible conflicts of interest, corporate opportunities, compliance responsibilities, and reporting and accountability. The Code stresses personal accountability. Directors, officers, or employees who become aware of conflicts of interest or are concerned that a conflict might develop are required to disclose the matter promptly.
In accordance with the applicable NYSE listing standards and the Code, any material transactions or relationships involving a director or executive officer that could reasonably be expected to give rise to a conflict of interest must be approved or ratified by the Audit & Risk Committee and a list of those approvals and ratifications must be submitted semi-annually to the Board of Directors. The Audit & Risk Committee approves or ratifies material transactions or relationships involving a director or executive officer based on the facts and circumstances of each case. In addition to self-reporting, information about potential conflicts of interest is obtained as part of the annual questionnaire process. In response to the annual Directors’ and Officers’ Questionnaire, each director and executive officer submits to the Corporate Secretary a description of any current or proposed related party transactions. These transactions are presented to the Audit & Risk Committee for review and approval or ratification.
The Company and its subsidiaries are also subject to extensive federal regulations regarding certain transactions, including banking regulations relating to the extension of credit by subsidiary banks to insiders, such as executive officers, directors and entities in which these individuals have specified control positions.
During 2012, the Company and its banking and investment subsidiaries engaged in transactions in the ordinary course of business with one or more of the Company’s directors and executive officers, members of their immediate families, corporations and organizations of which one or more of them was a beneficial owner of 10% or more of a class of equity securities, certain of their associates and affiliates, and certain trusts and estates of which one or more of them was a trustee or beneficiary. All loans to such persons were made in the ordinary course of business, were made on substantially the same terms, including interest rates and collateral, as those prevailing at the time for comparable loans with persons not related to the Company, and did not involve more than the normal risk of collectability or present other unfavorable features.
Mr. Donald M. Takaki, a current director and director nominee is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of HawkTree International, Inc. (“HawkTree”) and its subsidiaries, Pacific Courier, Inc. (“PCI”) and Island Movers, Inc. (“Island Movers”). PCI provides courier and ATM servicing/currency transportation services to the Company through two separate contracts, and Island Movers provides moving/relocation services to the Bank. In 2012, the Island Movers contract cost approximately $1,100. The PCI courier contract cost approximately $1,509,000 in 2012. The ATM servicing and currency transportation services contract cost approximately $3,127,000 in 2012. The above-mentioned transactions were made in the ordinary course of business and made on terms and conditions comparable to contracts with other customers not related to the Company. The Audit & Risk Committee has previously ratified and approved the contracts with PCI, Island Movers and HawkTree.
Mr. Raymond P. Vara, Jr., director nominee, is President and CEO for Hawaii Pacific Health (“HPH”), a non-profit health care system and Hawaii's largest health care provider with annual gross revenues in excess of $900,000,000. In 2012, the Company served as administrator of an HPH defined contribution plan and received fees for such services in the approximate amount of $220,000. In addition, the Company provided various banking services and received miscellaneous fees of approximately $25,000. Another Hawaii financial institution serves as HPH's primary bank and provides most of HPH's banking needs. The above-mentioned transactions were made in the ordinary course of business and made on terms and conditions comparable to contracts with other customers not related to the Company.
41
PROPOSAL 3: RATIFICATION OF SELECTION OF AN
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
The Audit & Risk Committee has selected Ernst & Young LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for 2013. The Board recommends that the shareholders ratify this selection. Ernst & Young LLP has been the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm since its incorporation in 1971. We expect representatives of Ernst & Young LLP to attend the annual meeting. Ernst & Young LLP has indicated that they will have no statement to make but will be available to respond to questions. If this Proposal does not pass, the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm will be reconsidered by the Audit & Risk Committee.
The Board of Directors recommends a vote “FOR” the foregoing proposal.
ERNST & YOUNG LLP FEES
Ernst & Young LLP’s fees for professional services rendered for 2012 and 2011 were as follows:
|
Service
|
2012
|
|
2011
|
|
||||
|
Audit Fees
|
$
|
1,323,555
|
|
$
|
1,287,445
|
|
||
|
Audit-Related Fees
|
250,000
|
|
260,000
|
|
||||
|
Tax Fees
|
31,499
|
|
34,060
|
|
||||
|
All Other Fees
|
102,842
|
|
—
|
|
||||
|
Total
|
$
|
1,707,896
|
|
$
|
1,581,505
|
|
||
Audit Fees
The Audit Fees for 2012 and 2011 represent fees for professional services rendered for the audit of the Company’s annual consolidated financial statements, the review of our quarterly financial statements included in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, and the audit of our internal control over financial reporting. Audit fees also represent fees for professional services rendered for statutory and subsidiary audits.
Audit-Related Fees
The Audit-Related Fees for 2012 and 2011 represent fees for employee benefit plan audits, services with respect to Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (“SSAE”) No. 16 related to the Company’s trust operations, and other attestation reports.
Tax Fees
The Tax Fees for 2012 and 2011 represent fees for the preparation of expatriate tax returns and other tax advisory services.
All Other Fees
All other fees in 2012 represent fees for advisory services rendered for an analysis of the Company's FDIC assessments.
42
AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE REPORT
As members of the Audit & Risk Committee, we review the Company’s financial reporting process on behalf of the Board of Directors. Management has the primary responsibility for the financial statements and the reporting process, including the systems of internal controls and disclosure controls. In this context, we have met and held discussions with management and the independent registered public accounting firm. Management represented to us that the Company’s consolidated financial statements were prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, and we have reviewed and discussed the audited financial statements and related disclosures with management and the independent registered public accounting firm, including a review of the significant management judgments underlying the financial statements and disclosures.
The independent registered public accounting firm reports to us. We have sole authority to appoint and to terminate the engagement of the independent registered public accounting firm. As a matter of best practice, we submit the selection of the independent registered public accounting firm to shareholders for ratification.
We have discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm the matters required to be discussed by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board's (“PCAOB”) Accounting Standard No. 16, "Communications with Audit Committees," including the quality, not just the acceptability, of the accounting principles, the reasonableness of significant judgments, and the clarity of the disclosures in the financial statements. In addition, we have received the written disclosures and the letter from the independent registered public accounting firm required by applicable requirements of the PCAOB regarding communications with the audit committee concerning independence, and have discussed with the independent registered public accounting firm its independence from the Company and its management. In concluding that the independent registered public accounting firm is independent, we determined, among other things, that the audit and non-audit services provided by Ernst & Young LLP were compatible with its independence. Consistent with the requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the Audit & Risk Committee has adopted policies to avoid compromising the independence of the independent registered public accounting firm, such as prior committee approval of audit, non-audit, tax, and all other services, and required audit partner rotation.
We discussed with the Company’s internal auditors and independent registered public accounting firm the overall scope and plans for their respective audits, including internal control testing under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. We met with our internal auditors and independent registered public accounting firm, with and without management present, and in private sessions with members of senior management to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the Company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting. We also periodically met in executive session.
In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to above, as members of the Audit & Risk Committee, we recommended to the Board of Directors (and the Board of Directors subsequently approved the recommendation) that the audited consolidated financial statements be included in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012, for filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have also appointed the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm, subject to shareholder ratification, for 2013.
As submitted by the members of the Audit & Risk Committee,
Clinton R. Churchill, Chairman
Robert Huret, Vice Chairman
Mary G. F. Bitterman
Mark A. Burak
Martin A. Stein
43
AUDIT & RISK COMMITTEE PRE-APPROVAL POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
On an annual basis, the Audit & Risk Committee pre-approves all auditing and permitted non-audit services to be provided by Ernst & Young LLP, except that the Audit & Risk Committee need not pre-approve any permitted non-audit services that meet the requirements of any de minimis exception established by SEC rules. The pre-approved list of services consists of audit services, audit-related services, and tax services. Any type of service that is not included on the pre-approved list of services must be specifically approved by the Audit & Risk Committee or its designee, the Committee Chairman, provided that any such pre-approval by the Committee Chairman is presented to the full Audit & Risk Committee at its next meeting. Any proposed service that is included on the list of pre-approved services but will cause the pre-approved fee level to be exceeded also requires specific pre-approval by the Audit & Risk Committee or its designee, the Committee Chairman, provided that any such pre-approval by the Committee Chairman is presented to the full Audit & Risk Committee at its next meeting.
All of the services provided by, and fees paid to, Ernst & Young LLP in 2012 were pre-approved by the Audit & Risk Committee, and there were no services for which the de minimis exception permitted in certain circumstances under SEC rules was utilized.
OTHER BUSINESS
The Board of Directors knows of no other business for consideration at the annual meeting. However, if other matters properly come before the meeting or any adjournment, the person or persons voting your shares pursuant to instructions by proxy card, telephone, or the Internet will vote as they deem in the best interests of Bank of Hawaii Corporation.
A copy of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the related consolidated financial statements and schedules filed with the SEC, is available without charge to any shareholder who requests a copy in writing. Any exhibit to Form 10-K is also available upon written request at a reasonable charge for copying and mailing. Written requests should be made to the Corporate Secretary at 130 Merchant Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813.
44
45
46
47
48
TABLE OF CONTENTS
General InformationQuestions and Answers About the Proxy Materials and the Annual MeetingProposal 1: Election of DirectorsBoard of DirectorsBeneficial OwnershipCorporate GovernanceBoard Committees and MeetingsDirector CompensationDirector Compensation TableProposal 2: Advisory Vote on Executive CompensationCompensation Committee ReportExecutive Compensation - Compensation Discussion and AnalysisSummary Compensation TableAll Other Compensation TableNonqualified Deferred CompensationGrants of Plan-Based Awards in 2012Outstanding Equity Awards at Fiscal Year-EndOption Exercises and Stock Vested in 2012Equity Compensation Plan InformationPension BenefitsChange in Control, Termination, and Other ArrangementsSection 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting ComplianceCertain Relationships and Related TransactionsProposal 3: Ratification of Selection of an Independent Registered Public Accounting FirmErnst & Young LLP FeesAudit & Risk Committee ReportAudit & Risk Committee Pre-Approval Policies and ProceduresOther Business