Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2011

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Note 1.  Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Basis of Presentation

Bank of Hawaii Corporation (the “Parent”) is a Delaware corporation and a bank holding company headquartered in Honolulu, Hawaii.  Bank of Hawaii Corporation and its Subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”) provide a broad range of financial products and services to customers in Hawaii, Guam, and other Pacific Islands.  The Parent’s principal and only operating subsidiary is Bank of Hawaii (the “Bank”).  All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation.

The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X.  Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and accompanying notes required by GAAP for complete financial statements.  In the opinion of management, the consolidated financial statements reflect normal recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the results for the interim periods.

Certain prior period information has been reclassified to conform to the current period presentation.

These statements should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.  Operating results for the interim periods disclosed herein are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2011.

Use of Estimates in the Preparation of Financial Statements

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes.  Actual results may differ from those estimates and such differences could be material to the financial statements.

Investment Securities

Transfers of debt securities from the available-for-sale category to the held-to-maturity category are made at fair value at the date of transfer.  The unrealized holding gain or loss at the date of transfer remains in accumulated other comprehensive income and in the carrying value of the held-to-maturity investment security.  Premiums or discounts on investment securities are amortized or accreted as an adjustment of yield using the interest method over the estimated life of the security.  Unrealized holding gains or losses that remain in accumulated other comprehensive income are also amortized or accreted over the estimated life of the security as an adjustment of yield, offsetting the related amortization of the premium or accretion of the discount.

Realized gains and losses are recorded in noninterest income using the specific identification method.

Goodwill

In December 2010, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (the “FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update (“ASU”) No. 2010-28, “When to Perform Step 2 of the Goodwill Impairment Test for Reporting Units with Zero or Negative Carrying Amounts.”  Under GAAP, the evaluation of goodwill impairment is a two-step test.  In Step 1, an entity must assess whether the carrying amount of a reporting unit exceeds its fair value.  If it does, an entity must perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test to determine whether goodwill has been impaired and to calculate the amount of that impairment.  The provisions of this ASU modify Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test for reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts.  For those reporting units, an entity is required to perform Step 2 of the goodwill impairment test if it is more likely than not that a goodwill impairment exists.  The Company adopted the provisions of this ASU in preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011.  As of March 31, 2011, the Company had no reporting units with zero or negative carrying amounts or reporting units where there was a reasonable possibility of failing Step 1 of the goodwill impairment test.  As a result, the adoption of this ASU had no impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

Fair Value Measurements and Disclosures

In January 2010, the FASB issued ASU No. 2010-06, “Improving Disclosures About Fair Value Measurements,” which added disclosure requirements about transfers into and out of Levels 1, 2, and 3, clarified existing fair value disclosure requirements about the appropriate level of disaggregation, and clarified that a description of the valuation technique (e.g., market approach, income approach, or cost approach) and inputs used to measure fair value was required for recurring, nonrecurring, and Level 2 and 3 fair value measurements.  The Company adopted these provisions of this ASU in preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2010.  This ASU also requires that Level 3 activity about purchases, sales, issuances, and settlements be presented on a gross basis rather than as a net number as previously permitted.  The Company adopted this provision of the ASU in preparing the Consolidated Financial Statements for the period ended March 31, 2011.  As this provision amends only the disclosure requirements related to Level 3 activity, the adoption of this provision of the ASU had no impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.  See Note 12 to the Consolidated Financial Statements for the disclosures required by this ASU.

Future Application of Accounting Pronouncements

In January 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-01, “Deferral of the Effective Date of Disclosures about Troubled Debt Restructurings in Update No. 2010-20.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2010-20, “Disclosures about the Credit Quality of Financing Receivables and the Allowance for Credit Losses” required the disclosure of more granular information on the nature and extent of troubled debt restructurings and their effect on the allowance for loan and lease losses effective for the Company’s reporting period ended March 31, 2011.  The amendments in ASU No. 2011-01 deferred the effective date related to these disclosures, enabling creditors to provide such disclosures after the FASB completed their project clarifying the guidance for determining what constitutes a troubled debt restructuring.  As the provisions of ASU No. 2011-01 only defer the effective date of disclosure requirements related to troubled debt restructurings, the adoption had no impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-02, “A Creditor’s Determination of Whether a Restructuring is a Troubled Debt Restructuring.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-02 provide additional guidance related to determining whether a creditor has granted a concession, include factors and examples for creditors to consider in evaluating whether a restructuring results in a delay in payment that is insignificant, prohibit creditors from using the borrower’s effective rate test to evaluate whether a concession has been granted to the borrower, and adds factors for creditors to use in determining whether a borrower is experiencing financial difficulties.  A provision in ASU No. 2011-02 also ends the FASB’s deferral of the additional disclosures related to troubled debt restructurings as required by ASU No. 2010-20.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-02 are effective for the Company’s reporting period ending September 30, 2011.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-02 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In April 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-03, “Reconsideration of Effective Control for Repurchase Agreements.”  ASU No. 2011-03 modifies the criteria for determining when repurchase agreements would be accounted for as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale.  Currently, an entity that maintains effective control over transferred financial assets must account for the transfer as a secured borrowing rather than as a sale.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 removes from the assessment of effective control the criterion requiring the transferor to have the ability to repurchase or redeem the financial assets on substantially the agreed terms, even in the event of default by the transferee.  The FASB believes that contractual rights and obligations determine effective control and that there does not need to be a requirement to assess the ability to exercise those rights.  ASU No. 2011-03 does not change the other existing criteria used in the assessment of effective control.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-03 are effective prospectively for transactions, or modifications of existing transactions, that occur on or after January 1, 2012.  As the Company accounts for all of its repurchase agreements as collateralized financing arrangements, the adoption of this ASU is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-04, “Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and IFRSs.”  ASU No. 2011-04 results in a consistent definition of fair value and common requirements for measurement of and disclosure about fair value between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”).  The changes to U.S. GAAP as a result of ASU No. 2011-04 are as follows:  (1) The concepts of highest and best use and valuation premise are only relevant when measuring the fair value of nonfinancial assets (that is, it does not apply to financial assets or any liabilities); (2) U.S. GAAP currently prohibits application of a blockage factor in valuing financial instruments with quoted prices in active markets.  ASU No. 2011-04 extends that prohibition to all fair value measurements; (3) An exception is provided to the basic fair value measurement principles for an entity that holds a group of financial assets and financial liabilities with offsetting positions in market risks or counterparty credit risk that are managed on the basis of the entity’s net exposure to either of those risks.  This exception allows the entity, if certain criteria are met, to measure the fair value of the net asset or liability position in a manner consistent with how market participants would price the net risk position; (4) Aligns the fair value measurement of instruments classified within an entity’s shareholders’ equity with the guidance for liabilities; and (5) Disclosure requirements have been enhanced for recurring Level 3 fair value measurements to disclose quantitative information about unobservable inputs and assumptions used, to describe the valuation processes used by the entity, and to describe the sensitivity of fair value measurements to changes in unobservable inputs and interrelationships between those inputs.  In addition, entities must report the level in the fair value hierarchy of items that are not measured at fair value in the statement of condition but whose fair value must be disclosed.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-04 are effective for the Company’s interim reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2011.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-04 is not expected to have a material impact on the Company’s statements of income and condition.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU No. 2011-05, “Presentation of Comprehensive Income.”  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements.  In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income.  The statement(s) are required to be presented with equal prominence as the other primary financial statements.  ASU No. 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in shareholders’ equity but does not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income.  The provisions of ASU No. 2011-05 are effective for the Company’s interim reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2011, with retrospective application required.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 is expected to result in presentation changes to the Company’s statements of income and the addition of a statement of comprehensive income.  The adoption of ASU No. 2011-05 will have no impact on the Company’s statements of condition.