The Difference Between a Good Cause and a Good Investment
by OHA Trustee Keli‘i Akina, PhD, Ka Wai Ola, October 1, 2026
A business proposal can sound attractive when it comes wrapped in a good cause. It may promise cultural benefits and opportunities for Native Hawaiians. But as an OHA trustee, I have to ask another important question: Is it also a good investment?
That distinction matters because trustees are not entrepreneurs placing bets with our own money. We are fiduciaries responsible for resources that belong to our beneficiaries, including generations yet to come. Good intentions matter, but they do not replace our duty to exercise care, loyalty, independence, and sound judgment.
Whenever OHA considers committing substantial trust resources to a business venture, trustees should ask basic questions. What return can we realistically expect, and what are the risks? Do we have the expertise and resources to oversee the investment? Have the assumptions been carefully tested? And do the expected benefits justify the financial risk and commitment of beneficiary resources?
We should also ask whether the proposed structure is the best way to accomplish the goal.
Different approaches carry different responsibilities and risks. Direct ownership, for example, may require greater financial and operational oversight than a grant or loan. The question is not whether one approach is always better than another, but whether trustees have carefully considered the alternatives before committing beneficiary resources.
Hawaiʻi has its own history to guide us.
In the 1964 case Steiner v. Hawaiian Trust Company, the Hawaiʻi Supreme Court criticized a trustee for leaving much of a family’s inheritance concentrated in one risky stock for more than a decade. When the trustee finally sold some of that stock, it sold shares to its own president and a major shareholder without fully informing the beneficiaries. The lesson was clear: the trustee is supposed to be a neutral fiduciary looking out only for the beneficiaries, not steering trust assets toward people connected to itself.
That lesson still applies. A worthy mission does not lessen the need for careful review. Putting too much into one business can expose beneficiaries to loss. And when the people recommending, evaluating, or participating in a venture have overlapping interests, greater scrutiny may be necessary.
Conflicts of interest are not always obvious. They may arise when a trustee or employee has a financial, personal, or professional relationship with someone who could benefit from a transaction. Even when nobody intends to do anything improper, those relationships can affect judgment or create questions about whether the process is truly independent.
Hawaiʻi saw the importance of this principle during the Bishop Estate controversy of the 1990s. A court-appointed master examined investments in which trustees and employees had invested their own money alongside the trust and raised concerns about the lack of safeguards for the resulting potential conflicts. The episode reminds us why fiduciaries must keep personal interests separate from the interests of their beneficiaries.
None of this means trustees should avoid risk altogether. Every investment carries some uncertainty, and even a carefully considered investment may not succeed.
Prudence means doing the work before making the decision: understanding the risks and benefits, using realistic assumptions, obtaining independent advice when appropriate, disclosing conflicts, and putting safeguards in place.
A worthy cause deserves our enthusiasm. Trust resources deserve our judgment.
Sometimes good fiduciary judgment means saying yes. Sometimes it means asking more questions or requiring stronger protections. And sometimes it means deciding that another approach would better serve our beneficiaries.
That is not standing in the way of progress. It is doing the job of a trustee.