You are like a little kid who has to be right. Wiggle, wiggle wiggle. You go from insisting that WMDs were not the main reason the Bush administration used for invading Iraq to conceding that Bush's statement that "the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction" is an acceptable basis for saying WMDs was the reason. Your silly arguments are based on minor interpretations of the meanings of words. Are you a retired English teacher? So now you'll allow me and others to be right about the justification for invading Iraq as long as you can be right, too. You're just a 74-year-old going on 7. LMAO! Sure we can end the discussion with your "compromise," but I have a feeling you won't be able to leave it here. So take your last shot and I'll promise not to respond.
How can you argue that Bush's primary justification for the Iraq invasion was not to disarm Saddam? Were you in a coma during the months before the invasion was launched?
"The world has waited 12 years for Iraq to disarm. America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country and our friends and our allies. The United States will ask the U.N. Security Council to convene on February the 5th to consider the facts of Iraq's ongoing defiance of the world. Secretary of State Powell will present information and intelligence about Iraqi's -- Iraq's illegal weapons programs, its attempts to hide those weapons from inspectors and its links to terrorist groups. We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."
- George W. Bush
January 28, 2003
"Under Resolutions 678 and 687 -- both still in effect -- the United States and our allies are authorized to use force in ridding Iraq of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will. Last September, I went to the U.N. General Assembly and urged the nations of the world to unite and bring an end to this danger. On November 8th, the Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, finding Iraq in material breach of its obligations, and vowing serious consequences if Iraq did not fully and immediately disarm. Today, no nation can possibly claim that Iraq has disarmed. And it will not disarm so long as Saddam Hussein holds power. For the last four-and-a-half months, the United States and our allies have worked within the Security Council to enforce that Council's long-standing demands. Yet, some permanent members of the Security Council have publicly announced they will veto any resolution that compels the disarmament of Iraq. These governments share our assessment of the danger, but not our resolve to meet it. Many nations, however, do have the resolve and fortitude to act against this threat to peace, and a broad coalition is now gathering to enforce the just demands of the world. The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours."
- George W. Bush
March 17, 2003
Bank of Montreal reported Tuesday that its third-quarter profit fell by 16 percent from a year earlier on lower income from investment banking businesses and the impact of a weaker U.S. dollar. Even though the results missed analysts' expectations, BMO raised its quarterly dividend by three cents to 49 cents a common share.
Thanks for the update. Nesbitt didn't see the huge CIBC settlement coming. How confident are you of their assessment of TD's Enron liability?
BINGO! And that's exactly what Nesbitt had to do with CIBC. Nesbitt's latest research doesn't mention TD's possible Enron liability -- not even under the section titled Company Risk Disclosure. It's no wonder they were able to raise their target price for TD.
Nesbitt on CIBC:
Nesbitt on TD:
Being an optimist, put my guess in at $1.2 billion. And I reserve the right to make a new guess if another defendant settles before TD.
I think almost everyone agrees with that statement. The disagreement is over the degree of the involvement. The big question is how much is TD going to have to pay to settle the shareholders' suit.
That's just about where we were when CIBC announced its $2.4 billion settlement, yet CIBC remains about 11% lower than it was before the settlement was announced. Does anyone have any ideas why TD has recovered from the CIBC news even though it still faces its own undetermined settlement? By increasing its Enron reserves today, isn't TD signaling that it will have to settle for more than previously thought?
In settling the mega-claims suit, Clark said, "We have agreed to a negotiated settlement because we thought it was preferable to the time, expense and unpredictability of litigation." It's apparent that the time, expense and unpredictability of the UC shareholder suit is growing each day, too. That's why TD added another $300 million to its litigation reserves. I hope they settle soon so they don't have to add another $300 million next quarter.
Do you still think TD is a buy at this point? It's interesting that CIBC's two-day loss totals 11% -- about the same percentage the settlement was of CIBC's market cap. TD's two-day loss is 3.5%. That's just over $1 billion. Do you think that's what the market is figuring TD's Enron bill will be?
<<Bailing (for now).>>
That sounds like a safe play -- at least until TD gets past this Enron mess. If the plan is to go to court, the trial isn't scheduled till October 2006. One can only imagine what the bill would be if they lose at trial. It could make CIBC's $2.4 billion settlement look like a steal.
Thanks for the posts, watchman. Does anyone have any guess what the downside in stock price could be if TD has to pay something similar to the CIBC settlement – or even more? If CIBC settled because it was afraid it would have to pay significantly more if it waited longer, that doesn’t sound like good news for TD. And what about the CFO’s statement that CIBC didn’t increase the Enron reserves because it had no contact with the plaintiff’s lawyers until after the JP Morgan settlement? Certainly those lawyers also have been in touch with TD. Maybe it’s time that Toronto Dominion raises its minimum estimate for the cost of a settlement agreement. Or do they plan to wait and catch shareholders by surprise? TD probably is restricted in what it can say about the matter, but it sure would be nice if it could give us an updated hint in the case by letting shareholders know whether it intends to increase the Enron reserves above $300 million.
Yikes! I hope this ain't a sign of bad news to come for TD. I'm wondering if it might be time to take a little profit out of TD. CIBC's ticker symbol is BCM. I'm also guessing that it won't be going up tomorrow morning.
If you're going to pretend to discuss TD, you could try a little harder than recycling a 10-month-old report that had virtually no effect on TD's price. If you haven't noticed yet, TD is $10 higher than it was when your "big news" broke last September.
I think most people on this board, including me, would agree with you about TD Waterhouse. So you're not recommending that TD shareholders call their brokers and tell them to sell strongly? The "Strong Sell" for you simply means "TD Waterhouse is crap"?