• Twitter
• Facebook
• Snapchat
• Pinterest
• LinkedIn
• Tumblr

---

Fundamental analysis: Bank of Hawaii Corporation (BOH)

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

Note: All scores range from 1 (worst) to 10 (best). Conclusions are updated daily with closing stock prices and new reported quarterly financial statements.

Revenue score: 6.0

• Business has been shrinking at a fast pace. It's been weak when measured against peer companies.
• Bank of Hawaii Corporation business trend is extremely stable, which is best. It looks top-notch against rivals.

Margins score: 8.5

• BOH profit margins -on goods and services sold- are usually meagre. They stand slightly worse than rival companies.
• Business profit on sales tends to be very good. It's almost average when measured against competitors.
• Profits on sales made -available to repay debt and purchase properties- are usually excellent. They remain close to average when compared to peers.
• Earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- tend to be huge in relation to total revenues. They're still slightly worse than similar companies.
• Profits -before income taxes- are usually huge considering total sales, and remain encouraging in relation to rivals.
• Total net profit tends to be huge when confronted to sales. Company stands encouraging in relation to comparable firms.

Growth score: 4.7

• Bank of Hawaii Corporation profit -on goods and services sold- has been growing at an excellent pace. It's been in good shape compared to competitors.
• In recent years, earnings -on operations- have been growing at an excellent step, which has been slightly worse than comparable firms.
• Profits growth -available to repay debt and purchase properties- have been almost stagnant, which compares below average when measured against peer enterprises.
• Growth on earnings -before income taxes and interests on loans taken- have been almost stagnant. It turns to be in a weak position compared to similar stocks.
• In past years, growth on profits -before income taxes- was almost stagnant. It was mediocre against rivals.
• In the previous years, growth on total net profit has been almost null, and weak when measured against peer companies.
• Earnings per share have been almost stagnant in past years. It's been in a weak position compared to industry peers.

Miscellaneous score: 6.0

• BOH had to pay sparse income taxes in relation to profits made in the past years. It's been slightly better than peers.
• The company does not report R&D expenses. It's meaningless to measure in relation to competitors.
• We have insufficient data to estimate how effective is research and development effort. It stands unknown against rival companies.

Profitability score: 7.2

• Bank of Hawaii Corporation usually gets hardly sufficient returns on the resources it controls. It proves weak when measured against peer firms.
• The company normally gets huge proceeds -on the resources directly invested in the business-. They remain impressive in relation to similar companies.
• There's usually excellent profitability -in relation to owned resources-. It ranks top tier when measured against competitors.
• In the past, got barely sufficient returns -on the tangible resources it controls-. This metric is usually related to the industry in which operates and combines profitability versus reinvestment needs. It's weak when measured against comparable enterprises.

Usage of Funds score: 7.9

• BOH usually uses a slight portion of genuine funds generated to buy or replace property, plant, or equipment. The need for reinvestments is light. It stands weak when measured against rival firms.
• The company is usually somewhat investing in new property, plant, and equipment, to improve its operating capabilities, which is encouraging in relation to industry peers.
• In the past twelve months it paid excellent dividends, considering the current stock price. It came top-notch against competitors.
• In recent years, has slightly cut back dividend payments. The company has behaved in a weak position compared to similar firms.
• Dividend payments usually represent a minor portion of genuine funds generation and are most likely safe. Sustainability looks mediocre against comparable companies.
• The company usually neither enlarges nor reduces the pool of investors, resulting in approximately the same mouths feeding on the pie of profits. It remains in good shape compared to peer enterprises.
• Repurchase effectiveness metric is very complex. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It stands a slight improvement compared to rivals.
• The company uses a low portion of genuine fund generation to reward investors, which can most likely be sustained. It still looks below average when measured against competitors.

Balance Sheet score: 6.5

• Bank of Hawaii Corporation intangible assets (like brands and goodwill) represent a very small portion of resources controlled, according to accounting books, which is mostly safe. It happens to be similar to peer companies.
• The company has a lot more short-term resources than short-term obligations. There're no liquidity concerns. It turns to be close to average when compared to similar firms.
• Very few resources controlled were provided for with financial debt. Financial strength is very solid. Company could increase debt if it wished so, to reinvest in business, to buy a smaller company or to reward stockholders. It remains slightly better than rival firms.
• Most controlled resources might be only slowly turned into cash and equivalents, which is risky. It looks encouraging in relation to rivals.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and short-term receivables. It's close to average when compared to peer firms.
• For every dollar of short-term obligations, the company has a lot of dollars in cash and equivalents, which is slightly worse than similar enterprises.
• Usually, sales are on slightly higher than two months credit. It still ranks weak when measured against peers.
• Days of inventory outstanding are not known. It comes up as a big question mark against competitors.
• We could not gauge the normal operating cycle of the company. It happens to be a mystery against peers.
• Unfortunately, we had not enough data to estimate the days of payables outstanding. It ranks unknown against industry peers.
• Cash conversion cycle remains unknown, due to not having enough inputs. It's incomparable against similar companies.
• Company earns net interest income on its investments and therefore is in a quite comfortable financial position. It stands top-notch against rival firms.
• Business earnings have usually been good when measured against loans taken. Cutting back reinvesting in the business, it could take less than three years to repay the obligations with current profitability. It ranks encouraging in relation to comparable enterprises.
• Revenues are somewhat low in relation to property, plant, and equipment required to operate. This metric is likely dependent on the industry the company operates in. The more property, plant, and equipment used, the more the company must reinvest to fight obsolescence, which usually means less available funds for the shareholders in the long run. It looks lacking compared to similar firms.
• Resources exploitation is virtually zero, as the firm hardly reports any sales. It's still somewhat worse than peer companies.

Valuation score: 7.2

• Bank of Hawaii Corporation has an unknown adjusted Price-to-Earnings ratio, so we cannot comment on that. It happens to be a necessary comparison against competitors.
• Price-to-Tangible-Book-Value is a fairly complex metric. Run again in analytical mode if you're interested in a technical explanation. It remains lacking compared to peers.
• There is insufficient information on the genuine funds generation capability showed in the past twelve months, which stands as an incognita in relation to similar companies.
• Unfortunately, lack of enough yearly data impaired our ability to estimate the normal earnings power. It's still an unknown variable to measure against industry firms.
• In the past twelve months, the company has rewarded investors, considering both dividends and share on the pie of earnings. It came up in good shape compared to peer ventures.
• We are unsure on the relationship between net financial position and market capitalization of the stock. It looks we will not be able to reach a conclusion regarding similar enterprises.
• Considering the past twelve months, traditional Price-to-Earnings relation looks cheap. Possible reasons are that the market might be betting current earnings will be hard to sustain through time, or that the company has very high fund needs, or a weak financial position, among others. If that isn't the case, the current stock price might be attractive. It ranks encouraging in relation to peer companies.
• Comparing the current stock price with the past twelve-months revenues gives a three or four to one relationship. This is an important metric to check its evolution through time, and to compare to industry peers. It looks a slight improvement compared to rival firms.
• The relation between the stock price and accounting book value might be reasonable. It's important both to check this metric through time and to compare it with rival companies. The company remains mediocre against peer firms.
• We could not gauge an alternative metric of earnings power of the past twelve months. It happens to be an interesting metric to relate to industry peers.
• An alternate metric on the usual genuine-funds generation ability could not be provided. It's still unknown against peer companies.

Total score: 6.8

---

Awarener score: 6.4

Conclusion

Support us!

We are an independent project. No ads, no suscription, no registration required.

• Donate!