TD
Toronto Dominion Bank
stockNYSE

BoA are consistently full of shit, TD too

* **Stifel:** Raised price target to **$725** from $700 (Keeps a *Buy* rating). * **UBS:** Lowered price target to **$700** from $730. * **TD Cowen:** Reaffirmed a *Top Pick* / *Buy* rating with a **$675** price target. * **Piper Sandler:** Raised price target to **$650** from $600 (Keeps an *Overweight* rating). * **Wells Fargo:** Lowered price target to **$650** from $700 (Keeps an *Overweight* rating). * **Bank of America (BofA):** Lowered price target to **$650** from $720 (Keeps a *Buy* rating). * **Goldman Sachs:** Maintained a *Buy* rating and a **$700** price target.

You have a quite nice cushion, just need to be strict sa expense and save sa HYSA or TD with special rates the other idle funds. Make sure you got financial protection din while young and planning to start family. Taas lang ng inflation so okay yung MP2 tapos hanap ka mas mas mataas sa 7%. Always monitor lang and live simply while doing the 1 year breather. I also took a 1 year break, just got back from it. Parang narefresh utak hehe

Now these comments just prove how the Boglehacks have taken over with their BS. They can’t even give a good dividend stock credit. Well surprise surprise, I’ve got news for you: 1) VOO did not exist in 1998 and QQQ began in 1999, so why would you assume you’d have more if you bought something that wasn’t created yet 😂 2) If you use VFINX (The S&P fund that actually did exist) and back test since 1998 you clearly see that TD actually beat the market. It had CAGR of 13.6% vs 9.19% for the market. Therefore, no you wouldn’t actually had more dividends if you bought the market, sold and bought TD later. 🤦‍♂️ Hilarious what recency bias will do to people.

There is no magic of dividends. It’s the underlying entity that matters. Compare say Amazon (no dividends) to TD. It’s not even close. Pick JPM.. similar dividend growth, but much worse overall performance. For every TD there are dozens of dividend plays that have gone nowhere.

Dividends aren’t exciting at first but once you get rolling they get very exciting. I was with a friend who has held TD bank since 1998. He bought 10,000 shares at about $5 each. This $50,000 investment pays his initial investment back in dividends every single year. So although the stock’s dividend yield is only 3%, his yield is 100%. This is assuming he doesn’t reinvest the dividends, if you do reinvest the dividend his yield from initial investment is almost 350% . Dividend paying stocks benefit you both in the payments and also as the stock price goes up.

Unless TD adds Plaid support, I doubt there will be a workaround.

<Q&A Continued 3> OP: Thank you, and the next question comes from the line of Joshua Buchalter with TD Cowen. Please proceed with your question. Joshua Buchalter: Hey, guys, thanks for taking my question, and congrats on the progress. I was wondering if you could give us insight into how we should be thinking about HBM costs impacting your model as the Instinct business ramps. I think investors have been asking how your revenue per gigawatt contribution in the last year or so at your outlook has been so consistent in that $15 to $20 billion per gigawatt range given what's going on with HBM pricing. Is that because early builds are fairly program specific and pricing was agreed upon a long time ago? And again, as we think about that business longer term, do you have the ability to pass on these higher input costs even to your big three customers? Thank you. Lisa: Sure, Josh. So the way to think about it is, as we ramp, we have had, let's call it long-term agreements with some of our suppliers as well as some of our customers. But given where the memory market is, and not just the memory market, by the way, other component costs are also seeing some inflationary pressures in the sense of as there is more CapEx that is put into the overall supply chain environment, we are also working with our customers to ensure that those costs are shared as we go forward. So from my perspective, back to the question that Vivek had, this is all about TCO and ensuring that from a tokens per dollar standpoint, that we continue to offer very strong advantages for choosing AMD Instinct and our overall Helio system. And even with some of the inflationary pressures that are out there, we certainly believe that we are offering leading TCO for the AI workloads. Josh: Thank you, Lisa. And maybe for Jene, it was good to see OpEx come in light in the third and fourth quarter. It's been a sticking point for investors for a little bit. But I guess, given how steep the revenue growth is expected to be in 2027, we're flying a little blind given you're kind of at more than 2x your target model. How should we think about OPEX growth in 27? And I guess while we're in the neighborhood, do you think you can hold your target gross margin range so to that 55% floor as we move through the year and Helios continues to ramp? Thank you. Jean Hu: Yeah, Josh, thank you for the question. On the OPEX, as you said, we have been investing aggressively. What you are seeing is the investment are translating to accelerating revenue growth. We're seeing in 2026, we're actually quite pleased with the 2026 operating leverage. We're expanding revenue much faster than OPEX growth, which is driving the operating margin increase. And if you think about the Q4 guide, we're guiding very significant revenue growth more than OPEX. That dynamic, we believe, will carry into 2027. Lisa talked about we expect the whole company growing more than 80%. We should expect OPEX to grow less than the top-line revenue growth rate, less than half of the top-line revenue growth rate. So that will drive a very significant operating margin expansion in 2027. Going back to gross margin, we are actually very happy about where we are with our gross margin. In Q3, we are ramping MI450. Data center's AI business is doing very well, actually better than our expectation when we got into the Q3 quarter. And in Q4, we are guiding sequentially revenue growing 50% for data center business. It's actually going to be the quarter data center AI business surpass server business. So we all know there is a margin, a little bit dilutive to corporate average, but the gross margin dollars are increasing very significantly. I think looking ahead of 2027, we actually think our data center business will be more than 80% of the total company revenue. So the mix of data center business is going to drive the company's gross margin significantly. The way to think about it is data center AI will continue to ramp through 2027. And the server business is expected to double. So quarter over quarter there may be variations because the mix of those businesses will be a little bit different. In addition, embedded businesses strengthening in 2027, I think that will also help our growth margin. Overall, when you put the whole business model together, what you should expect us to do is significant top-line revenue growth, significant gross profit expansion, and the OPEX growing revenue growth, which will result in very significant operating margin expansion and profitability expansion.

TD??

Gonna need a TD explanation to unwind this one lol

Q5. Ritu Baral, TD Cowen: site training; buy-and-bill vs pharmacy benefit** **OPERATOR:** Thank you, Gavin. Our next question comes from Ritu Baral with Cowen. Please go ahead, Ritu. **RITU BARAL:** Good morning, guys. Um, another question on competitive positioning, especially as it relates to site support. Um, Laura, you mentioned that the team that you have will help with drug sourcing and monitoring. What about um, training that has come up with a lot of the interventional sites that we have spoken to? Um, what sort of programs are you guys? Um, developing or sponsoring for drug training, and how might that um, translate to other therapies that could be competitively available? And then you mentioned buy and bill versus the pharmacy benefit um, uh, that could be used for reimbursement. Do you have, do you guys um, have any idea right now what the preference for buy and bill versus pharmacy benefit is in the interventional sites that you guys are working with? **KABIR NATH:** Thanks, Ritu. That was definitely two questions, not one. But leaving that aside, Sorry. I think Bill, and the first part to Steve, and then to Laurie. **STEVE:** Yeah, I'll take training. Good morning, Ritu. Uh, in terms, let's start with what the requirements will be. Based on our interactions with the FDA as we work towards finalizing our REMS, we expect there to be uh, training content within the REMS that will take about one to two hours to review. And again, that will represent the requirements for healthcare providers. Beyond that, there's an opportunity here. Because we anticipate our, the approval of our product to, to be the beginning, really, of a shift and an evolution in how mental health care is delivered, we will also support, and we have begun to support, the enablement of other forms of training and education. We will develop our own resources, but we've also enabled this through the grants that we've provided to training organizations. And to other forms of education and training that we will enable to really solidify our leadership in the space of preparing the workforce for this paradigm shift in how people living with severe mental health care conditions receive their care. **LORI ENGLEBERT:** And hi, Ritu. I'll ask, I'll answer the second question. Um, so remember, for psychiatry, buy and bill is relatively new. Uh, as new as Spravato um, has come to market. So right now, uh, we think and believe, you know, Spravato buy and bill volume is somewhere in the in the 30 to 40% range um, of volume. And in terms of preference, you know, just using that as a proxy, we don't believe that buy and bill will be uh, a huge for COMP360 out of the gate, but we expect it to ramp to something very similar for Spravato, potentially even even surpassing it. **LORI ENGLEBERT:** What we know is that some sites do prefer buy and bill, and, and we definitely want to make sure that that option remains open for them because it is obviously an additional source of revenue. And also, part of the reason why uh, interventional psychiatry treatment centers are starting to grow so rapidly, um, there is obviously appeal in the fact that there are additional sources of revenue for these sites uh, beyond just the, the billing for, for monitoring time. **Q6. Madison El-Saadi, B. Riley: efficacy by number of prior failures** **OPERATOR / MADISON EL-SAADI:** Thank you, Ritu. Our next question comes from Madison El-Saadi from B, B. Riley. Uh, over, I believe, 95% of the patients had failed two to four treatments. Uh, how does COMP360 efficacy compare in less severe versus uh, the more refractory patients? And is this, I know you've spoken about this before, is this different something that's fundamental to psilocybin itself? And maybe I'll just state the same question in a different way. Within 005, 006, did response and durability differ between patients with zero to one prior failure, uh, versus those that had three or four prior failures? **STEVE:** Uh, good morning, Madison. Uh, first, I'll be a bit obnoxious and say I'm militant at saying that patients are failed by treatments. They haven't failed. Uh, but that's a side point uh, and not a criticism of you. Uh, we haven't yet done an analysis of the response or remission rates or other outcome measures based upon the number of lines of treatment that have failed these patients within our studies. That said, it's well established. That the longer someone goes untreated, the more lines of treatment that have failed these patients, the more refractory they are, the less likely it is that they'll benefit from further treatment. And so, looking at the baseline characteristics in our phase III study and phase IIb, where the average length of the current episode is three to four years, to see the benefit that we've seen for these patients is really quite remarkable. And it's very reasonable to assume that those who have A shorter time course of treatment, or who have had fewer treatments within this episode, would actually be more likely to benefit or might have a deeper response. And you know, I think we can say that pretty clearly because the stream does move in one direction. We know that for the 55 plus NDD labeled antidepressants that exist today, many of them have tried to demonstrate efficacy in TRD and failed to do so. However, if you are starting with the most difficult to treat patients and showing the efficacy we've shown with the rapid onset and the durability that's on the scale, unlike anything we've ever seen, it is very reasonable to assume that those who have had a, a less refractory course would be more, even more likely to benefit. **LORI ENGLEBERT:** And Madison, it might also just be worth noting that because we were studying treatment-resistant depression, we are we were required to study the failures after two two failures, so we would not have any data on the zero to, to two failures. **MADISON EL-SAADI:** Understood. Thank you both. **OPERATOR:** Thank you, Thanks, **Q7. Josh Brewer, RBC: the white-glove approach** **OPERATOR:** Matt. Thank you, Madison. Our next question comes from Josh Brewer with RBC. Please go ahead, Josh. **JOSH BREWER:** Uh, hey, everybody. Um, yeah, so I was wondering if you could give us a, a little more detail on sort of the outlines of the white, white glove approach you'll be taking um, in the uh, initial phases of the launch and uh, whether or not you expect you know, white glove service to have the biggest impact. On adoption enthusiasm among private academic community or government sites. Thanks. **KABIR NATH:** Oh, sure. **LORI ENGLEBERT:** Yeah, thanks, Josh. This is probably my favorite topic to talk about. Um, Steve has his favorites, I have my favorites. Um, so the white glove approach that that, that I, I like to talk about is is all encompassing about the way that we will show up. Um, not only the way that our field force shows up in offices, um, but also how Compass shows up as, as, as a company. I think it's very important to understand that physicians, when adopting something as paradigm changing as COMP360 has the potential to, to do, and psychedelics in general coming to market, there will be some hesitancy or uncertainty. Um, there will be some, you know, this is not the typical antide oral antidepressant that's rolling out from a pharma company. There will be some newness to this, um, and the newness will be, you know, what the REMS requirements will look like. Um, and what, uh, you know, how they get reimbursed for the time spent monitoring for, for the six hours. Um, all of this will need some hand holding, which is the white glove that I'm, I'm referring to. We also recognize, as I mentioned earlier in, in, in comments, that, you know, we want to make sure that we're showing up and making sure that patients are not prohibited from receiving treatment due to financial constraints. Um, and so we are going to put, put forth a very robust patient support services. Program. We're going to make sure that sites know how to bill correctly. We're going to make sure that they are attaching the CPT III codes so that we can advance them to category one as quickly as possible. So all of this requires a, a, a somewhat different approach and level of, of attention to the sites and to patients. Uh, that is not usual in, in pharma companies. **KABIR NATH:** And Josh, it's maybe worth adding that what we've been building and what we're planning for is not only based on past experience, and certainly it's not pulled out of thin air. Much of this has been, the foundations have been laid with the work we've been doing over the past few years with a wide variety of settings of care, many of which you named within your question, to really understand any of the potential barriers to implementation and delivery. Not just in the most obvious settings like the interventional psychiatry clinics, of which there's more than 8,500 at this point, for whom this will be very easy, but also all the other settings of care where people living with TRD receive that care today. **JOSH BREWER:** All right, thanks, guys. **Q8. Pat Trucchio, H.C. Wainwright: retreatment label language** **OPERATOR:** Thank you, Josh. Our next question comes from Pat Trucchio with H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead, Pat. **PAT TRUCCHIO:** Hi, good morning. Uh, my question is on uh, repeat dosing. I'm wondering what regulatory feedback you've received on physician-directed retreatment versus minimum interval or defined symptom threshold. And what would be the ideal language in a, you know, upcoming potential label? **KABIR NATH:** Thank you, Patrick. So we're not going to go into great detail on the label now, given where we are in the review process. But as we've said always, what we would envisage and target is, you know, after one or two initial administrations, that then there is the provision for episodic dosing per physician decision.

Now that TreasuryDirect requires [ID.ME](http://ID.ME) to login, I'm noticing that my linked account balance wasn't updating when logging into Schwab on my Account Summary page. (To be fair, it's always been wonky, and I've had to consistently sign back in to get the balance to refresh). TreasuryDirect switched over to requiring [ID.ME](http://ID.ME) to sign in so the format of the login credentials are different than in the past. I notice that Schwab hasn't updated their account connection login page for TreasuryDirect as it still appears to require the old credentials (which TD no longer accepts). I know this change is recent, and I'm sure Schwab will catch up eventually, I just wasn't sure if anyone had luck in the meantime. I just ended up removing my TreasuryDirect Account from the Account Summary view since I couldn't update it.

Pre market on TD shows OGI and Aurora halted maybe a deal being made between the 2

Ja konstant ist die TD nicht. Das wird aber natürlich auch in der Natur der Sache liegen, also an der Indexgröße und dem optimierten Sampling. Erfreulich trotzdem, dass er in 2025/2026 besser lief als der Index. Möglicherweise liegt es daran, dass er in letzter Zeit immer mehr Titel aufgenommen hat. Dadurch sollte die TD immer weniger schwanken.

> Negative Tracking Differenz (d.h. gut) ist bekannt. Die TD vom A1JJTD (SPRD ACWI IMI Acc) ist weiterhin nicht konstant und auch gerne mal positiv (nach der Lesart schlecht für die Investoren, da der ETF schlechter als der Index lief). Renditedaten auf Kalenderjahresbasis laut Factsheet, Stand 30.09.2026: Jahr|Index|ETF vor Kosten|ETF nach Kosten --|--|--|-- 2026|12,97 %|13,47 %|13,32 % 2025|22,06 %|22,41 %|22,20 % 2024|16,37 %|16,32 %|16,13 % 2023|21,58 %|21,37 %|21,10 % 2022|-18,40 %|-17,19 %|-17,52 % 2021|18,22 %|18,72 %|18,25 % https://api.fundinfo.com/document/e59b750e497b4a1d09cfb1adc9f0b709_194553/MR_DE_de_IE00B3YLTY66_RES_2026-09-30.pdf