Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. (HE) on Q1 2021 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Operator: Good day, and welcome to the Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. First Quarter 2021 Earnings Conference Call. All participants will be in listen-only mode. Please note, this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Julie Smolinski, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, ma’am. Julie Smolinski: Thank you, Rocco. Welcome, everyone, to Hawaiian Electric Industries’ first quarter 2021 earnings call. Connie Lau: Thank you, Julie, and aloha to everyone. Mahalo, thank you for joining us today. We had a very strong start to the year with first quarter consolidated net income of $64.4 million and earnings per share of $0.59. These results were 93% and 90%, respectively, above the same quarter last year and were driven by stronger earnings at both, the utility and the bank. In the first quarter, Hawaiian Electric benefited from continued savings from the robust cost management program we started last year. The savings will be delivered to customers in rates beginning in June, and along with other timing elements, we expect the utility to remain within the full year guidance range we announced in February. American’s first quarter results reflect good execution in an environment that remains challenging for bank profitability. Our results benefited from a release of provision as we continue to conservatively manage credit in the improving Hawaii economy. As Greg will cover in more detail, we’re increasing our bank guidance and consolidated HEI guidance for the year, to reflect this improvement. We’re seeing strengthening in the local economy as Hawaii continues to manage the virus well and the vaccine rollout continues. Unemployment declined to 9% in March, while still above the national average, it’s headed in the right direction, having declined from a peak of nearly 24% a year ago. We’ve seen significant growth in tourism arrivals this year. And lately, we’ve experienced multiple days where arrivals have approached pre-pandemic averages. At this point, almost all our arrivals are from the U.S. mainland as the COVID situation and vaccinations abroad have been more challenging than domestically. Hawaii real estate fundamentals are strong and continue to support the conservative portfolio mix at the bank. Year-to-date, March, Oahu sales volumes are up 19% for single-family homes and 53% for condos. Median prices are also up, 17% to $950,000 for single-family homes and 4% to $450,000 for condos. Greg Hazelton: Thank you, Connie. Turning to our first quarter results. Consolidated earnings per share were $0.59 versus $0.31 in the same quarter last year. Both the utility and the bank reported strong performance, reflecting the resilience of our companies and the Hawaii economy that has showed signs of a strengthening recovery. At the utility, earnings reflect lower O&M expenses from cost reduction efforts and delays on timing of generation overhauls, coupled with higher revenues from our annual rate adjustment mechanism, including timing-related charges for target revenue recognition to eliminate seasonality impacts. The bank benefited from the release of provision for credit losses as certain credits earned upgrades, and we saw stable credit trends and an improving economic outlook. While the holding company loss is well in line with plan, we increased charitable giving during the quarter, including a $2 million contribution to support our community through challenging times. Compared to the same time last year, consolidated trailing 12-month ROE improved 80 basis points to 10%. Utility ROE increased 160 basis points to 9%. And bank ROE, which we look at on an annualized basis, was 16%. The utility outlook remains unchanged, however. And the ROE expectations will be impacted by the management audit savings and customer dividend as O&M cost reductions that have improved earnings for the quarter are used to fund customer build reductions under PBR. Regarding the utility’s results, net income for the quarter was $43.4 million compared to $23.9 million in the first quarter of 2020. The most significant variance drivers were $10 million lower O&M expenses compared to the first quarter last year. There were three main factors that drove O&M lower: Lower staffing and efficiency improvements from the ongoing cost management program; timing-related items, including higher bad debt expense in the first quarter of 2020 related to COVID-19, which has since been deferred; and fewer generating facility overhauls, some of which will be performed later in the year. There were also higher costs in 2020 related to an increased environmental reserve and higher outside service costs to support the PBR docket and other customer service projects. Connie Lau: Thanks, Greg. I’m proud of the dedication of our employees and the resilience of our companies as we continue to provide essential electricity and banking services and deliver solid financial results while helping Hawaii reach its aggressive climate goals and build back better. Last month, we issued our second consolidated ESG report, which includes our ESG priorities and our first task force on climate-related financial disclosures aligned reporting. We’re considering the implications for our companies by the Biden administration’s goal to cut carbon emissions 50% from a 2005 baseline by 2030. We believe our goals and plans here in Hawaii and the work we’ve been doing for some time, place us on a strong path to achieve a net zero future. We’re updating our planning and analysis, and we’ll report further on that in the future. And finally, we say aloha to Rich today as he is leaving American to pursue other interests. Rich accomplished a great deal during his more than 10 years at the helm of American. Rich leaves American in great shape as evidenced by ASB’s strong first quarter earnings and Greg’s comments earlier. Under Rich’s leadership, ASB has grown its assets, expanded its customer base, products and services and improved operational efficiency. He and his team have provided great customer service and made banking easy for customers. We thank Rich for his leadership and contributions to American and also our state. Ann Teranishi, currently the bank’s Executive Vice President of Operations, will succeed Rich as President and CEO later today. Ann is a strong collaborative leader with deep banking industry knowledge and a 14-year track record of success at American. We look forward to Ann’s leadership. And now, we will open it up for your questions. Operator: Today’s first question comes from Julien Dumoulin-Smith with Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead. Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Hey. Good afternoon, team -- or good morning to you all. Thanks so much for taking the time. Well, congratulations on some fairly impressive results and turnaround. So, maybe to kick things off here on the utility side, can you comment a little bit on this 9% ROE? I mean, that’s a pretty fantastic outcome, especially given the backdrop here. How do you think about the cadence through the course of the year of that ROE? Because, obviously, you’ve kept your utility numbers intact, how do you think about that degradation through the course of the year relative to what is presumably some of the cost savings metrics? And then, if I can throw another twist on there. Is that 9% something we should think about in the later years as those costs -- those front-end loaded cost benefits roll off here? Greg Hazelton: So, thanks, Julien, for the question. I’ll start and characterize this. For the first quarter, we had a good start to the quarter, but largely in line with plan. The utility has been focused on efficiencies and cost savings since last year, and you saw the benefits of that at our year-end report as well, and that’s continued well into this year. But, as you know, we have accelerated customer build benefits as we implement PBR this year, and 2021 is a transition year under PBR. So, we expect, while we’ve got a great start and solid expectations, we’ll meet all of our plans on those cost reduction efforts, that we’re still in line with our overall guidance that we issued at the beginning of the year and that our ROEs will reflect that guidance, which we represented just below 8% earlier this year. So, again, the quarterly results recognize a fast start, but over time, it will moderate to be consistent with our guidance. The other element that you mentioned, though, was those cost benefits of the cost saves will continue with the programs that Scott and Tayne and the utility team has put into place. So, we do expect some opportunity for that to benefit realized earnings over time as we continue through the full implementation of PBR and over the next several years. Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. Excellent. And then, just to make sure I heard this on the utility side right. How do you think about that utility CapEx issue here? I mean, just around some of the delays. I mean, what’s the order of magnitude that’s at risk here? Just to understand because I know you alluded to some things. But you’re keeping intact your rate base targets this year at the same time. Greg Hazelton: Yes. Again, we don’t see a lot of risk to the capital deployment plan, investment plan. There’s a lot of needed investment and the utility has done a great job in preparing and deploying for that. We -- you’ve seen at different points in time that the timing of specific projects can get delayed and impacted. But overall, the utility is confident that they’ll be able to meet their investment program and capital deployment consistent with the guidance we’ve provided. Julien Dumoulin-Smith: Got it. And super quick on the ASB side of the equation. With respect to NIM versus the release of reserves here, I mean how do you think about that to trend through the course of the year, right? I mean, obviously, things are accelerating, as you described yourself in your prepared remarks. So, presumably, that bodes well on release. But obviously, NIM, lower here. Just can you comment about those two factors through the course of the year as best you understand it today? Rich Wacker: Sure. This is Rich. So, the NIM, we brought the guidance down really reflecting the sort of what’s the continued pressure of the current environment. And if you think about it, you’ve seen the deposits grow. A lot of that -- since loan growth is relatively modest, a lot of that goes into the investment portfolio. And so, you’re mixing down because the NIM -- the margins on the investment portfolio are just lower than loans, because there’s no credit risk in there, right? So, you’re going to continue to have that mix effect until you get the economy stronger and loan growth moving up, right? So -- and then, on the provision, right now, a lot of it will depend on what happens with the specific credits, right? So, if the economy stays stronger, we would expect the credits that are in the special mention category would come up because that’s potential credit concerns. And if we don’t see them and because the economy is improving and they’re paying and there’s -- and the risks don’t appear, then with those upgrades, you could see continued adjustment of the level of coverage on the portfolio. I think, all the banks in the market brought down the coverage level a bit in the first quarter. And it’s going to depend on how the sustained improvement of the economy is and the result on those specific credits. Operator: And our next question comes from Durgesh Chopra with Evercore ISI. Please go ahead. Durgesh Chopra: Can I just -- maybe Greg, in terms of the utility EPS growth guidance of 4% to 5%, 2022 plus, that does not include performance incentive mechanisms, as I understand it. Maybe just can you -- if you -- depending on -- can you quantify -- I guess what I’m trying to -- can you quantify what the PIMs upside might be? Does it put you at the high end of that growth target, or could you actually grow higher than 5%? And then, what to look for in terms of time line as to the cadence of when these PIMs get approved and rolled into your plan? Greg Hazelton: Sure. And, as you know, with the implementation of PBR, a lot of those near-term PIMs and the incremental PIMs under PBR are being finalized currently. And the initial deployment of those -- seem to be somewhat moderate to provide room for additional PIMs over time and potentially a more meaningful opportunity. So, the current year’s guidance does not anticipate any meaningful contribution from PIMs. The guidance that we’ve given in terms of the 4%, 5% growth area was really predicated on our growth of invested -- and a return on our invested capital, which we have good recovery mechanisms for. Maybe I’ll turn it over to Tayne or the utility to talk about the dynamics longer term of the PIMs development and opportunities. Tayne Sekimura: Yes. This is Tayne. Thanks, Greg. In terms of the PIMs, and we’ve laid out some of that in our appendix part of our slides, but what we do see is for the PBR, the new PIMs and PBR, you can see that there is a lot more upside opportunity rather than penalties or downside. Currently, this year, as Greg mentioned, the PIMS are very modest as we get more guidance in terms of the details regarding those -- the PIMs. But, what I would say is, looking forward, the greatest opportunity we have for the PIM comes from the RPSA, and that comes from what we’re doing in terms of adding more renewables on our system. And the other thing I would say about that is, there’s also opportunities in other of the outcomes set forth in the PBR docket, which actually relate to customer outcomes and affording the state and energy goals there. So, that’s a little bit on the PIMs. Did I answer your questions? Durgesh Chopra: Yes, you did. Thank you. Just to be clear, though, I mean, the 4% to 5% sounds like does not include the additional upside that you might have for PIMs. That would be on top. The 4% to 5% is just recovery of base capital, right, as it stands in the plan? Tayne Sekimura: Yes, that’s correct. That’s correct. Just the 4% to 5% growth is on our invested capital. Greg Hazelton: Yes. Durgesh, as you know, we have an annual adjustment mechanism under the PBR, which will give us an increasing budget relative to inflation that should keep us whole. So, cost management within that target which -- and then also the recovery mechanisms on capital are part of that. Relative to the PIMs, I would just point you to pages 35 and 36, 37, where we provide more detail. And on 37, we did provide some estimated ranges for the RPSA PIM in particular, based upon our expectations of renewable project growth that could be achieved, but we still have to prove that out. Durgesh Chopra: Understood. Thank you. That’s super helpful. And just maybe a quick follow-up. Greg, your comments around equity, you mentioned no equity this year, unless you identify additional investment opportunities. Maybe just more -- just a little bit more color on what those opportunities might look like? Greg Hazelton: Yes. Well, you’ve gotten specific guidance for each of our primary operating subsidiaries, ASB, which is self-funding and a great source of capital and dividend distribution to the holding company with a very efficient capital structure and understand the capital deployment plans at the utility, which are on line to achieve their targets. Pacific Current, as you know, continues to develop and look at investment strategies here in Hawaii, consistent with our infrastructure-oriented mandate and a conservative approach, but also focused on competitive sustainability type investments here in Hawaii. And so, they continue to keep an active development pipeline and opportunities. And some of those investments can be lumpy. We will announce to you when those -- when and -- when we achieve additional growth and investments, but we see that as a promising opportunity. For the time being, we see those as relatively moderate and well-accommodated by our overall guidance and our ability to fund the growing platform. Operator: And our next question comes from Paul Patterson with Glenrock Associates. Please go ahead. Paul Patterson: So just on -- just to follow up on the loan -- the questions from Julien on the loan release. Given the -- how should we think about -- I mean, if the economy continues to stay strong, how often should we think about the potential for the loan loss reserve to be released? I mean, is this sort of a quarter-by-quarter thing? Or I mean it would seem to me that perhaps you want to have a little bit of time, not just on a quarterly basis, to see how these loans are performing in terms of reversing it. And just generically, it sounded to me that you guys felt that you were quite conservative. And clearly, with this release this quarter, it seems you were. So, how should we think about that if you follow what I’m saying? Rich Wacker: Yes. So, if you look back to last year kind of before the pandemic, our coverage of reserves to the loan book was about 1.5%, right? And that built up over the course of last year to 1.9%, and we came down to about 1.7%. And as Greg mentioned, our coverage is the strongest of the peers in the market. So, you can see we still have -- and the book shifted slightly over the course of that time, right? We have lower consumer unsecured that’s by design. And so, I think the mix of the book is a lower risk mix. And so, right now, there are -- in the reserving, there are assumptions that assume, as Greg said, a wait-and-see attitude. We haven’t built in assumptions of a lot of improvement in the economy because we need to see it, and we’re waiting. So, it will be a quarter-by-quarter assessment of the ratings on specific credits and how the book evolves in terms of lower balances, higher balances in certain categories, so. But, I think you can see from where we are, we’re still at a more robust coverage level than we were going in. That reflects the environment and that reflects the state of specific credits as the customers work through the environment. So, as we came into the year, we didn’t assume a lot of reduction. That’s the difference in what you saw. And if you think about the 0 to 10 range, the 10 would assume basically not much reduction in additional coverage and the 0 would assume that you got some. And so, where we end up in that will be a quarter-by-quarter assessment. Paul Patterson: Okay, great. And then, on the CBRE order, I mean, my understanding was that these are sort of PPAs. And I just was wondering, I mean, when looking at the order, I guess, I’m wondering is this really Hawaiian Electric. I mean, we seem to be ultimately that -- it would be with the party doing the PPA, the other party who’s supposed to be coming in with certain commercial dates. So I’m just sort of wondering how, if it was found that these PPAs weren’t working out as planned and that there was some liability, that Hawaiian Electric would theoretically be -- would have exposed. Would there be any recourse to the -- to another party? Do you follow what I’m saying? Connie Lau: Yes. So, let me ask the utility to address that. Scott Seu: Yes. Hi Paul, this is Scott Seu with Hawaiian Electric. So, the issue here is whether or not there is any liability for project -- these projects being delayed. And one of the things that we are planning to really raise to our commission is just throughout the process, the process has allowed for additional technical work to be done in terms of establishing requirements for these projects to be interconnected to the grid and then as necessary to be able to file amendments to the PPAs, including possibly amending the guaranteed commercial operation dates. So that’s really what the crux of the matter is, as far as we see it. To the extent that we are able to work through these issues with the PUC, while we are all trying to accelerate these projects in service stage just because of a variety of factors such as accelerating the RPS, at the same time, we feel that we have to be able to allow the developers reasonable time to get their projects installed and interconnected. Your question about could the developers, in theory, essentially challenge the utility, I don’t -- again, it really depends on the specific of the project. We’ve been working collaboratively with the developers as we’ve worked through the technical and contractual and service date issues. So, it’s -- I just won’t speculate in terms of whether or not any of these developers at some point in the future would feel the need to have a challenge to us. Paul Patterson: Okay. And I know that they’re asking you to sort of record, they sort of underline that and that they’re not actually doing -- that they’re not -- that any potential penalties, I guess, would be in another proceeding, but -- or future proceeding. But just in a ballpark, what are the -- if they were to be regulatory liabilities, what are we potentially talking about? Just roughly speaking, what’s the size of the potential liability? Tayne Sekimura: Paul, this is Tayne. We’re talking about millions of dollars annually in terms of potential. I mean that -- yes. Paul Patterson: So, somewhere between -- somewhere less than $10 million a year? Tayne Sekimura: Let me also provide you some details. In order to calculate any type of -- it really does matter on assumptions, in terms of guaranteed commercial operation dates, avoided costs and then also the price of oil. So, there’s a lot of assumptions made in that calculation. And so, very hard to determine at this point in time, but I would say we’re talking about millions of dollars annually. Paul Patterson: Okay. And then, just on the storage order that came out also, I guess, last week. I guess, the feeling there is they’re just not happy with the cost controls that are associated with that. Could you elaborate a little bit further about how you see that, the commission’s order, and if we should have any larger takeaways associated with their -- the order that they put out on Thursday? Scott Seu: Yes. Paul, I think the commission has raised -- has some additional concern beyond the cost of the project. One of the concerns they’ve raised is the role of the battery and how it’s actually functioning as part of our electric system, and in particular, whether or not this grid-tied standalone battery would be charged by renewable energy versus fossil fuel energy. So, that’s one -- I think that’s almost a central issue as far as a concern that the commission has raised. And that’s really, again, for further discussion. And as we file our motion for reconsideration next week, we’ll be raising our own points of view. Operator: And our next question comes from Jackie Bohlen with KBW. Please go ahead. Jackie Bohlen: I wanted to start off with just the liquidity mix and understanding there’s a lot of factors at play here. I saw the borrowing reduction that took place in the quarter. And just curious about what your thoughts are about additional liquidity deployment with that bucket now lower and then just the expectation that PPP loans will continue to be forgiven. So, how you expect things to fluctuate with that and what any deployment plans might be? Rich Wacker: Yes. No, we’re diligently seeking loan growth, right? I mean, that’s the obvious place that we’d like it to go. We are probably not selling as much of the mortgage production. And so, you’ll see -- we hope more of that production to go on balance sheet. Otherwise, it’s commercial real estate. There’s some projects that we hope to be able to get a participation in and some other ongoing investments in commercial -- investment commercial real estate. So, the shift is strictly going to be based on what the organic level of loan growth that we can achieve is. We’re not looking at portfolio purchases at this point and things like that. It’s all sort of regular customer community banking relationship growth. And the deposits continue to be strong. We do expect at some point that we would see a drawdown in deposits as things normalize, but we haven’t seen that yet. And so, it goes into the investment portfolio, and Dane and his team do the best they can to get some yield on it. Jackie Bohlen: Okay. And then, is there anything that would indicate that the HELOC portfolio -- some of the contraction there? And I mean, I fully understand the rate environment is driving that. My expectation is it might continue to come down even if single-family mortgage outside of the mix of what you’re putting in portfolio and not putting into portfolio stabilizes just as people -- it might still be advantageous to refi. Is that the correct way to look at it, or do you see it a different way? Rich Wacker: I think that trend is still there as rates -- interest rates moving up hasn’t yet resulted in mortgage rates moving up. So, you’ve got that gap there. So, you will continue to see the refinancing dynamic. But, we’re also starting to see -- with the valuation increases on residential, you’re starting to see people thinking about ways to monetize some of the equity growth that they have. And so, we are at early stages of I think the HELOC applications starting to pick up. Jackie Bohlen: Okay. So, maybe some home improvement projects could be coming down the pipeline and that could mitigate some of the other rate pressures? Rich Wacker: Right. Jackie Bohlen: Okay. That’s helpful. And then -- sorry, just running through my list. I know we already had a pretty robust provision discussion. Just in terms of the expense guide, and I know there’s a lot of maintenance and control. Is the plan still to offset in some of the investments that were discussed early on in the prepared remarks with cost savings from other areas? Rich Wacker: Yes. So, we’re trying -- our guidance was to come out kind of in the roughly the $48 million a quarter kind of range, flat versus last year. And so, there are naturally embedded inflations in the cost base, which are lease escalations and things like that. We held -- we described last time what we were doing to hold payroll costs, and we didn’t do merit increases and things this year because of the importance of controlling it. The things that we’re doing on the branch network will pay savings in the future. And we’ve already brought headcount down fairly significantly in some of those areas. So, I think, we continue to offset those embedded inflations, and we -- our work is not done till we get the cost savings that we want for out of all the investments that we’re doing. Jackie Bohlen: Okay. Rich Wacker: I think, when you look at the -- Connie mentioned the metrics on deposit transaction migration kind of as the indicator on the consumer side. We’ve gone up from -- if we were sitting here a year ago, we would have said that the transactions were about just under 20%. And on the consumer side, now 46%, 47% of the transactions, as we left the quarter, were being done outside the branch through the new ATMs and mobile and remote deposit. And so, the business side is lagging that, and we’ll work on that. But as we do the -- we talked about these digital centers, which are going to be more lightly staffed branches built around the full function ATMs but with teammates in there to help customers learn and adopt and get comfortable. It’s those kinds of things that will take the workload down that will allow us to do more of the savings. Jackie Bohlen: Okay, great. And Rich, best of luck with whatever life brings to you next. It’s been nice chatting with you over the last decade. Rich Wacker: Thanks, Jackie, will miss it. Operator: And our next question today comes from Charles Fishman with Morningstar. Please go ahead. Charles Fishman: Just one question left. If I understood, Greg, correctly, some of the cost savings that you experienced in the first quarter, later in the year, you’re going to be reversing those or giving -- our credits will go to customers under the PBR. And I guess, my -- that leads to my question is, once the PBR is in effect post June 1, will you just -- at that point, will there just be a regulatory liability that you establish, so you won’t have that timing issue? Greg Hazelton: Well, maybe to clarify the guidance. So, as you know, as PBR was implemented, there was an acceleration of cost saving benefits that was required under the -- under PBR, which we clarified in with $6.6 million annually levelized for the next three years or for the initial period of PBR. It takes a while for that to organically happen for the cost controls and everything to realize those types of savings and efficiencies. The bank -- or the utility has accelerated that work. And as you see, they started that last year to allow the O&M -- see the O&M savings, be able to fund that accelerated commitment. But, our expectation is and in the guidance was that O&M, excluding our pension costs, would be down, flat to down year-over-year, despite, even on the utility side, some natural inflationary cost increases because that’s offset by the overall efficiency programs. But, as those continue to gain traction and are implemented more fully, there will be likely benefits above and beyond what we’re providing directly to customers that will help us close the gap on our realized ROE and achieve the -- in line with earnings growth expectations over time. Connie Lau: And Charles, just to be clear, in the near term, there is a timing difference because that $6.6 million in customer savings that Greg mentioned for 2021, the utility did start generating those savings. But under PBR, they don’t start going back to customers for the total year until the -- June 1. And so, we are generating the savings up front, but they will go back to customers on -- starting June 1 for the 2021 year. And then, starting in 2022, the levelization, we’ll take it month-by-month throughout the year. Greg Hazelton: And to be clear, the implementation of PBR in June 1st also limited some of the benefits from PBR, including removing the lag on our annual revenue adjustment mechanisms and so forth. So again, next year, some of the additional benefits the PBR framework when fully implemented for the full year, we should see some benefits from that outside of the O&M issue that we’re talking about. Tayne Sekimura: Charles, this is Tayne Sekimura. One thing I want to add to what Greg and Connie said. In terms of mechanics of the return of those customer savings, it’s built into the ARA formula as part of PBR and then those tariffs going into effect on June 1st. So, that’s how mechanically it will be returned back to customers. Charles Fishman: Okay. It’ll just be a learning curve for, I guess, all of us on this. Thank you. That was good. And I saw the information you provided in the Q. That’s helpful. Thank you. That’s all I had. Connie Lau: Okay. Thanks, Charles. Operator: And ladies and gentlemen, this concludes our question-and-answer session. I’d like to turn the conference back over to Julie Smolinski for any final remarks. Julie Smolinski: Thank you all for joining us today and for your questions. Please do reach out to us in Investor Relations if you have any further questions. And most importantly, have a great weekend. Operator: Thank you, ma’am. This concludes today’s conference call. We thank you all for attending today’s presentation. You may now disconnect your lines. And have a wonderful day.
HE Ratings Summary
HE Quant Ranking
Related Analysis

Hawaiian Electric and Others Agree to $4 Billion Maui Wildfire Settlement: What It Means for Stakeholders

Hawaiian Electric and Others Agree to $4 Billion Maui Wildfire Settlement: What It Means for Stakeholders

Hawaiian Electric, along with several other entities, has reached a significant $4 billion settlement related to the Maui wildfire disaster. This settlement addresses the substantial damages caused by the wildfires and marks a major step in the legal and financial resolution of the crisis. Here’s a detailed look at the settlement and its implications for stakeholders.

Key Details of the $4 Billion Settlement

  1. Settlement Overview: The $4 billion settlement involves Hawaiian Electric and other parties in connection with the devastating wildfires that affected Maui. The settlement aims to compensate for damages and address the financial impact on affected communities.

  2. Legal and Financial Implications: This substantial settlement underscores the serious legal and financial consequences of the wildfires. It reflects the significant costs associated with the disaster and the efforts to provide relief and support to those impacted.

  3. Allocation of Funds: The settlement funds will be used to cover various aspects of the damages, including property losses, environmental recovery, and community support. The allocation will be crucial in addressing the needs of the affected areas and facilitating recovery efforts.

  4. Impact on Hawaiian Electric: For Hawaiian Electric, the settlement represents a major financial and reputational challenge. The company will need to navigate the financial implications of the settlement and work towards restoring trust and stability.

  5. Broader Implications: The settlement sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future. It highlights the importance of accountability and the financial responsibilities of companies involved in such disasters.

Implications for Stakeholders

  1. Community Support: The settlement provides much-needed support to the communities affected by the wildfires. It will help address immediate recovery needs and contribute to long-term rebuilding efforts.

  2. Investor Considerations: Investors in Hawaiian Electric and other involved entities should be aware of the financial impact of the settlement. This could influence stock performance and company valuations, necessitating a careful review of investment strategies.

  3. Legal and Regulatory Impact: The settlement may influence future legal and regulatory frameworks related to disaster management and corporate accountability. It could prompt companies to adopt more robust risk management practices to mitigate similar issues.

  4. Recovery and Reconstruction: The allocation of settlement funds will play a critical role in the recovery and reconstruction process. Effective use of these funds is essential for restoring normalcy and supporting affected communities.

Enhance Your Investment Analysis

To better understand the financial impact of major settlements and make informed investment decisions, utilize advanced financial tools for comprehensive analysis. FMP’s Owner Earnings API provides a detailed view of a company’s true profitability, including all expenses, taxes, and debt payments.

???? Unlock True Profitability Insights with FMP's Owner Earnings API!

Assess a company’s financial health and compare it with competitors using precise, data-driven insights. Explore the API here: FMP Owner Earnings API.

Stay informed and enhance your investment strategies with accurate financial data!