Canadian Peer Group Comparison
BMO’s performance in 2006 improved from 2005 on 8 of our 11 key financial performance and condition measures and was unchanged on 1. These measures are considered key because we monitor our performance on them relative to our peer groups. In 2005, our performance improved on 5 of the 11 measures and was unchanged on another.
Significant litigation provisions recorded by certain of our Canadian peers affected the peer group averages in 2005, resulting in higher peer group average growth rates in 2006. A large gain on the sale of a business by one of our Canadian peers improved the peer group averages in 2006 and also raised their average growth rates. The foregoing factors contributed to very strong peer group measures in 2006. As such, notwithstanding that 8 of BMO’s 11 key financial performance measures improved in 2006, our performance on these measures relative to our Canadian peers deteriorated from 2005.
In 2006, our performance was better than the Canadian peer group average on 1 of 7 financial performance measures, compared with above-average performance on 5 of 7 measures in 2005. Our rankings in 2006 improved on 1 of the 7 financial performance measures and were unchanged on 3 others. We were better than average on 1 of 4 financial condition measures in 2006, average on 1 and below average on 2. Our ranking improved on 1 measure, deteriorated on 1 and was unchanged on the other 2.
Our 2006 performance was better than our five-year average performance on 6 of 11 measures and was consistent with our average on another 2. Our five-year average results were better than the comparable Canadian peer group average on 4 of 7 financial performance measures but were worse than average on 3 of 4 financial condition measures.
North American Peer Group Comparison
Our 2006 rankings in the North American peer group slipped from last year. Our quartile ranking was unchanged on 4 financial performance measures and declined on the remaining 3.
Our performance was better than average on 3 of 7 financial performance measures in 2006, consistent with our performance in 2005. Our financial condition was better than average on 1 of 4 measures in 2006 and average on another, again consistent with our performance in 2005.
Our five-year average performance was better than the North American peer group average on 3 of 7 financial performance measures and on 1 of 4 financial condition measures.
