Organization and Basis of Presentation	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Organization and Basis of Presentation	1. Organization and Basis of Presentation First Hawaiian, Inc. (“FHI” or the “Parent”), a bank holding company, owns 100% of the outstanding common stock of First Hawaiian Bank (“FHB” or the “Bank”), its only direct, wholly owned subsidiary. FHB offers a comprehensive suite of banking services to consumer and commercial customers including loans, deposit products, wealth management, insurance, trust, retirement planning, credit card and merchant processing services. The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of First Hawaiian, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations. The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements and notes thereto should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018. In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which consist of normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the interim period consolidated financial information, have been made. Results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the entire year. Intercompany account balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. Transition to an Independent Public Company On July 1, 2016, FHI became a direct wholly owned subsidiary of BancWest Corporation (“BWC”), a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas (“BNPP”). In connection with FHI’s initial public offering (“IPO”) in August 2016, BNPP announced its intent to sell its interest in FHI, including FHI’s wholly owned subsidiary, FHB, over time, subject to market conditions and other considerations. Following a series of secondary offerings completed in 2017 and 2018, on February 1, 2019, BWC completed the sale of its remaining 24,859,750 shares of FHI common stock in a public offering. FHI did not receive any of the proceeds from the sales of shares of FHI common stock in that offering, in any of the secondary offerings described above or the IPO. As a result of the completion of the February 1, 2019 public offering, BNPP (through BWC, the selling stockholder) fully exited its ownership interest in FHI common stock. Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions believed to be reasonable. Although these estimates are based on management’s best knowledge of current events, actual results may differ from these estimates. Accounting Standards Adopted in 2019 In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). This guidance provided that lessees would be required to recognize the following for all operating leases (with the exception of short-term leases): 1) a lease liability, which is the present value of a lessee's obligation to make lease payments, and 2) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee's right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. Lessor accounting under the new guidance remains largely unchanged as it is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases and operating leases. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 on January 1, 2019 and elected several practical expedients made available by the FASB. Specifically, the Company elected the transition practical expedient to not recast comparative periods upon the adoption of the new guidance. In addition, the Company elected the package of practical expedients which among other things, required no reassessment of whether existing contracts were or contained leases as well as no reassessment of lease classification for existing leases and the practical expedient which permitted the Company to not separate nonlease components from lease components in determining the consideration in the lease agreement when the Company was a lessee or a lessor. The Company identified the primary lease agreements in scope of this new guidance as those relating to branch premises. As a result, the Company recognized a lease liability of $50.3 million and a related right-of-use asset of $50.6 million on its consolidated balance sheet on January 1, 2019. See “Note 16. Leases” for required disclosures related to this new guidance. In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-08, Receivables – Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs (Subtopic 310-20), Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities. Prior to the adoption of ASU No. 2017-08, entities typically amortized the premium as an adjustment of yield over the contractual life of debt securities. This guidance shortens the amortization period for certain callable debt securities held at a premium to the earliest call date. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2017-08 on January 1, 2019, and it did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities. The objectives of the new guidance were to: (1) improve the transparency and understandability of information conveyed to financial statement users about an entity’s risk management activities by better aligning the entity’s financial reporting for hedging relationships with those risk management activities, and (2) reduce the complexity of and simplify the application of hedge accounting by preparers. Historically, the Company has participated in limited activities in fair value and cash flow hedging relationships. As a result, the adoption of ASU No. 2017-12 on January 1, 2019, did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. See “Note 12. Derivative Financial Instruments” for required disclosures related to this new guidance. In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-15, Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That is a Service Contract. This guidance aligns the accounting for implementation costs related to a hosting arrangement that is a service contract with the guidance on capitalizing costs associated with developing or obtaining internal-use software. Common examples of hosting arrangements include software as a service, platform or infrastructure as a service and other similar types of hosting arrangements. While capitalized costs related to internal-use software is generally considered an intangible asset, costs incurred to implement a cloud computing arrangement that is a service contract would typically be characterized in the company’s financial statements in the same manner as other service costs (e.g., other assets). The new guidance provided that an entity would be required to amortize capitalized implementation costs over the term of the hosting arrangement on a straight-line basis unless another systematic and rational basis was more representative of the pattern in which the entity expected to benefit from access to the hosted software. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, with earlier adoption permitted in any annual or interim period for which financial statements have not yet been issued or made available for issuance. The Company early adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-15 on January 1, 2019 due to the Company’s shift towards utilizing more hosting arrangements that are service contracts. For the six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company capitalized $3.5 million related to hosting arrangements that are service contracts. In October 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-16, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), Inclusion of the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) Overnight Index Swap (OIS) Rate as a Benchmark Interest Rate for Hedge Accounting Purposes. This guidance expands the list of U.S. benchmark interest rates permitted in the application of hedge accounting by adding the OIS rate based on the SOFR. Due to concerns about the sustainability of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), a committee convened by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York initiated an effort to introduce an alternative reference rate in the U.S. The committee identified SOFR as the preferred alternative reference rate to LIBOR. The OIS rate based on SOFR was added as a U.S. benchmark interest rate to facilitate broader use in the marketplace and provide sufficient lead time for entities to prepare for changes to interest rate risk hedging strategies. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-16 on January 1, 2019 and it did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. Recent Accounting Pronouncements The following ASUs have been issued by the FASB and are applicable to the Company in future reporting periods. In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This guidance eliminates the probable recognition threshold for credit losses on financial assets measured at amortized cost. For loans and held-to-maturity debt securities, this guidance requires a current expected credit loss (“CECL”) approach to determine the allowance for credit losses. CECL requires loss estimates for the remaining estimated life of the financial asset using historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts. In addition, this guidance modifies the other-than-temporary-impairment model for available-for-sale debt securities to require an allowance for credit impairment instead of a direct write-down, which allows for a reversal of credit losses in future periods. This guidance requires entities to record a cumulative effect adjustment to the consolidated balance sheet as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, with earlier adoption permitted. In April 2019, the FASB also issued ASU No. 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. As it relates to CECL, this guidance amends certain provisions contained in ASU No. 2016-13, particularly with regards to the inclusion of accrued interest in the definition of amortized cost, as well as clarifying that extension and renewal options that are not unconditionally cancelable by the entity that are included in the original or modified contract should be considered in the entity’s determination of expected credit losses. As permitted by ASU No. 2016-13, the Company expects to elect the practical expedient to use the fair value of the collateral at the reporting date when recording the net carrying amount of the asset and determining the allowance for credit losses for a financial asset for which the repayment is expected to be provided substantially through the operation or sale of the collateral when the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty based on the Company’s assessment as of the reporting date. As permitted by ASU No. 2019-04, the Company expects to make accounting policy elections to not measure an allowance for credit losses on accrued interest receivable, write-off accrued interest receivable by reversing interest income and to present accrued interest receivable separately from the related financial asset on the balance sheet. The Company is also expected to apply a practical expedient to separately disclose the total amount of accrued interest as a single balance in certain disclosure requirements. The new guidance will require significant operational changes, particularly in data collection and analysis. The Company has formed a working group comprised of teams from different disciplines, including credit, finance and information technology, to evaluate the requirements of the new standard and the impact it will have on the Company’s current processes. The Company has also engaged a software vendor and is in the final stages of implementing a CECL production platform. Management expects that the preliminary CECL model will be ready for detailed review and testing during the third quarter of 2019. Based on the results of the Company’s parallel runs, management expects to have an estimate of the impact that this new guidance will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Company expects that testing, control design and model validation will continue throughout the remainder of 2019. In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. This guidance simplifies the subsequent measurement of goodwill by eliminating Step 2 from the current two-step goodwill impairment test. This guidance provides that a goodwill impairment test be conducted by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. Entities are to recognize an impairment charge for goodwill by the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value. Entities will continue to have the option to perform the qualitative assessment for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The adoption of ASU No. 2017-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820), Disclosure Framework – Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement. This guidance is a part of the FASB’s disclosure framework project to improve disclosure effectiveness. This guidance eliminates certain disclosure requirements for fair value measurements: the amount of and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, an entity’s policy for the timing of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy and an entity’s valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements. This guidance also adds new disclosure requirements for public entities: changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements of instruments held at the end of the reporting period, and the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop recurring and nonrecurring Level 3 fair value measurements, including how the weighted average is calculated. Furthermore, this guidance modifies certain requirements which will involve disclosing: transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, purchases and issuances of Level 3 assets and liabilities, and information about the measurement uncertainty of Level 3 fair value measurements as of the reporting date. This update is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The adoption of ASU No. 2018-13 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Organization and Basis of Presentation

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

1. Organization and Basis of Presentation

First Hawaiian, Inc. (“FHI” or the “Parent”), a bank holding company, owns 100% of the outstanding common stock of First Hawaiian Bank (“FHB” or the “Bank”), its only direct, wholly owned subsidiary. FHB offers a comprehensive suite of banking services to consumer and commercial customers including loans, deposit products, wealth management, insurance, trust, retirement planning, credit card and merchant processing services.

The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements of First Hawaiian, Inc. and Subsidiary (the “Company”) have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, certain information and footnote disclosures normally included in financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP have been condensed or omitted pursuant to such rules and regulations.

The accompanying unaudited interim consolidated financial statements and notes thereto should be read in conjunction with the Company’s audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018.

In the opinion of management, all adjustments, which consist of normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the interim period consolidated financial information, have been made. Results of operations for interim periods are not necessarily indicative of results to be expected for the entire year. Intercompany account balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

Transition to an Independent Public Company

On July 1, 2016, FHI became a direct wholly owned subsidiary of BancWest Corporation (“BWC”), a Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of BNP Paribas (“BNPP”). In connection with FHI’s initial public offering (“IPO”) in August 2016, BNPP announced its intent to sell its interest in FHI, including FHI’s wholly owned subsidiary, FHB, over time, subject to market conditions and other considerations.

Following a series of secondary offerings completed in 2017 and 2018, on February 1, 2019, BWC completed the sale of its remaining 24,859,750 shares of FHI common stock in a public offering. FHI did not receive any of the proceeds from the sales of shares of FHI common stock in that offering, in any of the secondary offerings described above or the IPO. As a result of the completion of the February 1, 2019 public offering, BNPP (through BWC, the selling stockholder) fully exited its ownership interest in FHI common stock.

Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements

The preparation of consolidated financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Management bases its estimates on historical experience and various other assumptions believed to be reasonable. Although these estimates are based on management’s best knowledge of current events, actual results may differ from these estimates.

Accounting Standards Adopted in 2019

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842). This guidance provided that lessees would be required to recognize the following for all operating leases (with the exception of short-term leases): 1) a lease liability, which is the present value of a lessee's obligation to make lease payments, and 2) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee's right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. Lessor accounting under the new guidance remains largely unchanged as it is substantially equivalent to existing guidance for sales-type leases, direct financing leases and operating leases. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2016-02 on January 1, 2019 and elected several practical expedients made available by the FASB. Specifically, the Company elected the transition practical expedient to not recast comparative periods upon the adoption of the new guidance. In addition, the Company elected the package of practical expedients which among other things, required no reassessment of whether existing contracts were or contained

leases as well as no reassessment of lease classification for existing leases and the practical expedient which permitted the Company to not separate nonlease components from lease components in determining the consideration in the lease agreement when the Company was a lessee or a lessor. The Company identified the primary lease agreements in scope of this new guidance as those relating to branch premises. As a result, the Company recognized a lease liability of $50.3 million and a related right-of-use asset of $50.6 million on its consolidated balance sheet on January 1, 2019. See “Note 16. Leases” for required disclosures related to this new guidance.

In March 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-08, Receivables – Nonrefundable Fees and Other Costs (Subtopic 310-20), Premium Amortization on Purchased Callable Debt Securities. Prior to the adoption of ASU No. 2017-08, entities typically amortized the premium as an adjustment of yield over the contractual life of debt securities. This guidance shortens the amortization period for certain callable debt securities held at a premium to the earliest call date. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2017-08 on January 1, 2019, and it did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In August 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-12, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), Targeted Improvements to Accounting for Hedging Activities. The objectives of the new guidance were to: (1) improve the transparency and understandability of information conveyed to financial statement users about an entity’s risk management activities by better aligning the entity’s financial reporting for hedging relationships with those risk management activities, and (2) reduce the complexity of and simplify the application of hedge accounting by preparers. Historically, the Company has participated in limited activities in fair value and cash flow hedging relationships. As a result, the adoption of ASU No. 2017-12 on January 1, 2019, did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements. See “Note 12. Derivative Financial Instruments” for required disclosures related to this new guidance.

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-15, Customer’s Accounting for Implementation Costs Incurred in a Cloud Computing Arrangement That is a Service Contract. This guidance aligns the accounting for implementation costs related to a hosting arrangement that is a service contract with the guidance on capitalizing costs associated with developing or obtaining internal-use software. Common examples of hosting arrangements include software as a service, platform or infrastructure as a service and other similar types of hosting arrangements. While capitalized costs related to internal-use software is generally considered an intangible asset, costs incurred to implement a cloud computing arrangement that is a service contract would typically be characterized in the company’s financial statements in the same manner as other service costs (e.g., other assets). The new guidance provided that an entity would be required to amortize capitalized implementation costs over the term of the hosting arrangement on a straight-line basis unless another systematic and rational basis was more representative of the pattern in which the entity expected to benefit from access to the hosted software. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, with earlier adoption permitted in any annual or interim period for which financial statements have not yet been issued or made available for issuance. The Company early adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-15 on January 1, 2019 due to the Company’s shift towards utilizing more hosting arrangements that are service contracts. For the six months ended June 30, 2019, the Company capitalized $3.5 million related to hosting arrangements that are service contracts.

In October 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-16, Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815), Inclusion of the Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) Overnight Index Swap (OIS) Rate as a Benchmark Interest Rate for Hedge Accounting Purposes. This guidance expands the list of U.S. benchmark interest rates permitted in the application of hedge accounting by adding the OIS rate based on the SOFR. Due to concerns about the sustainability of the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”), a committee convened by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York initiated an effort to introduce an alternative reference rate in the U.S. The committee identified SOFR as the preferred alternative reference rate to LIBOR. The OIS rate based on SOFR was added as a U.S. benchmark interest rate to facilitate broader use in the marketplace and provide sufficient lead time for entities to prepare for changes to interest rate risk hedging strategies. The Company adopted the provisions of ASU No. 2018-16 on January 1, 2019 and it did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

The following ASUs have been issued by the FASB and are applicable to the Company in future reporting periods.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-13, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses (Topic 326), Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments. This guidance eliminates the probable recognition threshold for credit losses on financial assets measured at amortized cost. For loans and held-to-maturity debt securities, this guidance requires a current expected credit loss (“CECL”) approach to determine the allowance for credit losses. CECL requires loss estimates for the remaining estimated life of the financial asset using historical experience, current conditions, and reasonable and supportable forecasts. In addition, this guidance modifies the other-than-temporary-impairment model for available-for-sale debt securities to require an allowance for credit impairment instead of a direct write-down, which allows for a reversal of credit losses in future periods. This guidance requires entities to record a cumulative effect adjustment to the consolidated balance sheet as of the beginning of the first reporting period in which the guidance is effective. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019, with earlier adoption permitted. In April 2019, the FASB also issued ASU No. 2019-04, Codification Improvements to Topic 326, Financial Instruments – Credit Losses, Topic 815, Derivatives and Hedging, and Topic 825, Financial Instruments. As it relates to CECL, this guidance amends certain provisions contained in ASU No. 2016-13, particularly with regards to the inclusion of accrued interest in the definition of amortized cost, as well as clarifying that extension and renewal options that are not unconditionally cancelable by the entity that are included in the original or modified contract should be considered in the entity’s determination of expected credit losses. As permitted by ASU No. 2016-13, the Company expects to elect the practical expedient to use the fair value of the collateral at the reporting date when recording the net carrying amount of the asset and determining the allowance for credit losses for a financial asset for which the repayment is expected to be provided substantially through the operation or sale of the collateral when the borrower is experiencing financial difficulty based on the Company’s assessment as of the reporting date. As permitted by ASU No. 2019-04, the Company expects to make accounting policy elections to not measure an allowance for credit losses on accrued interest receivable, write-off accrued interest receivable by reversing interest income and to present accrued interest receivable separately from the related financial asset on the balance sheet. The Company is also expected to apply a practical expedient to separately disclose the total amount of accrued interest as a single balance in certain disclosure requirements. The new guidance will require significant operational changes, particularly in data collection and analysis. The Company has formed a working group comprised of teams from different disciplines, including credit, finance and information technology, to evaluate the requirements of the new standard and the impact it will have on the Company’s current processes. The Company has also engaged a software vendor and is in the final stages of implementing a CECL production platform. Management expects that the preliminary CECL model will be ready for detailed review and testing during the third quarter of 2019. Based on the results of the Company’s parallel runs, management expects to have an estimate of the impact that this new guidance will have on the Company’s consolidated financial statements in the fourth quarter of 2019. The Company expects that testing, control design and model validation will continue throughout the remainder of 2019.

In January 2017, the FASB issued ASU No. 2017-04, Intangibles – Goodwill and Other (Topic 350), Simplifying the Test for Goodwill Impairment. This guidance simplifies the subsequent measurement of goodwill by eliminating Step 2 from the current two-step goodwill impairment test. This guidance provides that a goodwill impairment test be conducted by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying amount. Entities are to recognize an impairment charge for goodwill by the amount by which the carrying amount exceeds the reporting unit’s fair value. Entities will continue to have the option to perform the qualitative assessment for a reporting unit to determine if the quantitative impairment test is necessary. This guidance is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The adoption of ASU No. 2017-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

In August 2018, the FASB issued ASU No. 2018-13, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820), Disclosure Framework – Changes to the Disclosure Requirements for Fair Value Measurement. This guidance is a part of the FASB’s disclosure framework project to improve disclosure effectiveness. This guidance eliminates certain disclosure requirements for fair value measurements: the amount of and reasons for transfers between Level 1 and Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, an entity’s policy for the timing of transfers between levels of the fair value hierarchy and an entity’s valuation processes for Level 3 fair value measurements. This guidance also adds new disclosure requirements for public entities: changes in unrealized gains and losses for the period included in other comprehensive income for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements of instruments held at the end of the reporting period, and the range and weighted average of significant unobservable inputs used to develop recurring and nonrecurring Level 3 fair value measurements, including how the weighted average is calculated. Furthermore, this guidance modifies certain requirements which will involve disclosing: transfers into and out of Level 3 of the fair value hierarchy, purchases and issuances of Level 3 assets and liabilities, and

information about the measurement uncertainty of Level 3 fair value measurements as of the reporting date. This update is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those fiscal years, beginning after December 15, 2019. The adoption of ASU No. 2018-13 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.