Deutsche Bank AG (DB) 2013 Q2 法說會逐字稿

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, from Frankfort.

On behalf of Deutsche Bank, welcome to our Second Quarter Earnings Call.

We have with us today our Co-CEO, Anshu Jain; and our CFO, Stefan Krause.

First, Anshu is going to go over the progress we are making on our strategy and then Stefan will discuss with you our financial performance in the quarter and year to day.

Following their remarks, as customary, we will welcome your questions.

By now, you should have access to all of our publications on our website.

As always, please be reminded of the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking statements at the end of the presentation.

With that, Anshu, let me hand it over to you.

Thank you, Robert; and good morning.

We're now half way through 2013 and nearly a year into Strategy 2015 Plus.

Today, I'm pleased to tell you that Deutsche Bank is on course, despite the continued headwinds we face.

As you know, when we developed Strategy 2015 Plus, we identified five key strategic levers- capital, costs, competencies in our core businesses, clients and culture.

I'll say a few words on our journey on each of these.

Turning first to capital; we've stated that strengthening our capital position was our most-important and urgent strategic priority.

A year ago, we started out with a significant capital deficit versus our peers.

You told us clearly that this was unsustainable.

On our last earnings call in April, I was pleased to tell you that we had taken a Basel 3 pro form Core Tier 1 ratio from below six to 9.6%.

In nine months, we established Deutsche Bank as one of the leaders in our peer group in this measure with only a modest dilution for shareholders thanks to an equity raise which was well-supported.

In this quarter, nearly two years early, we reached our 2015 target of a Core Tier 1 ratio of 10% and simultaneously continued to strengthen our litigation reserves.

As you've seen, this includes a reserve of EUR630 million this quarter.

In total in the past year, we've increased reserves by some EUR2.8 billion, before releases; and EUR2.5 billion on a net basis.

Reserves now stand at EUR3 billion and we expect settlements to accelerate in the coming quarters.

Once again, the key to this achievement was solid retained earnings, thanks to strong operating performance, in tandem with sustained asset reduction.

Our Non-Core Operations unit has now reduced assets by around 40% from launch.

It has already surpassed its year-end asset-reduction targets.

We're pleased to have hit our capital targets early, but of course, we remain vigilant.

Having delivered on capital strength let me say a few words now on leverage.

We've made progress on this front.

In the second quarter, we reduced total adjusted assets by EUR55 billion.

This leaves us with a 3% adjusted fully-loaded CRD4 leverage ratio.

Now we commit to further reducing our exposures by approximately EUR250 billion on a CRD4 basis, through a series of measures, most notably by reducing our notional derivative exposures.

We aim to do this in a manner which enables us to meet leverage-ratio requirements, sustain our value proposition to clients, and continue to strengthen our business model without materially impacting financial performance.

Stefan will take you through the details, but let me say clearly- we reaffirm our published strategic and financial targets.

We're committed to addressing leverage with the same focus and discipline we applied to capital.

Costs are a crucial part of our agenda.

Our Operational Excellence Program, our OpEx, is all about building a better platform; tightening our control environment, serving customers better and improving the quality and efficiency of our infrastructure.

A lot more work lies ahead, but we're making steady progress.

In Private & Business Clients, we have merged two retail platforms, supported by an integrated state-of-the-art operating system.

During this quarter, we rolled out simpler account-opening processes and better real-time information for clients.

So far, we have migrated over 20 million clients onto this unified platform.

We've removed over 100 redundant, but duplicate products.

In Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management, we've launched an integrated global client group with around 800 covenant specialists.

We also established a single investment platform of 700 experts, working as one team.

So now our asset allocation process embraces a full suite of products and asset classes.

But simply, clients now enjoy a single point of access to a full range of investment options.

This one-team approach is not only better for clients, it also enabled us to eliminate duplication in research and product manufacturing, consolidate booking centers and simplify our back office.

We're also consolidating our global systems infrastructure.

We've invested in a world-class IT platform to standardize, automate, consolidate and simplify core operational functions.

By the end of this quarter, we'd made progress.

Derivative trade processing is now three and a half times faster than nine months ago.

Streamlining application development has enabled us to eliminate more than 1000 applications, including more than 250 in the second quarter alone, and we migrated around 2.5 million securities accounts into a single master database.

We are reengineering processes across our financial reporting platform.

This reinforces controls and speeds up the supply of key management information.

Across our infrastructure platform, we're making greater use of [near sharing] and cost-efficient locations than ever before.

We set ourselves a target cost reduction of EUR4.5 billion, the largest in Deutsche Bank's history, by 2015.

Some of you told us that was ambitious.

We agree.

But so far, we're delivering on milestones.

And at the end of the quarter, we've saved a cumulative total of EUR1.1 billion; for the first half year, costs of around EUR600 million below 2012, on an underlying run-rate basis.

We promise to continue to focus relentlessly on costs.

Many of you have told us how important this is.

Investment spending on the OpEx program will increase between now and year end, in line with our budget forecast to achieve.

Let me now turn to competencies in our core businesses.

In Corporate Banking & Securities, our investment banking platform; revenues and profitability were up significantly year on year and our franchise was strong.

Debt sales and trading revenues were below the second quarter of 2012, primarily reflecting lower year-on-year revenues in residential and mortgage-backed securities.

However, foreign exchange performed strongly and we were voted number one in U.S. fixed income for the fourth year running.

Our equities business, both trading and origination performed outstandingly, in good measure thanks to strong revenue growth in the U.S. Our corporate finance market share was the highest ever.

We also saw the benefits of balance sheet and cost reductions as we positioned CB&S to perform in the Basel 3 environment.

In Private & Business Clients we produced a second consecutive record quarter on an underlying basis.

In a tough interest-rate environment, we succeeded in growing our credit and investment businesses in Germany and other European markets, while simultaneously making progress on the large and complex Postbank integration.

I should point out that our P&L in this business included accounting effects from our minority participation in Deutsche Bank in China.

Global Transaction Banking produced a solid quarter.

The dynamics of this business remain challenging, again influenced by the interest-rate environment and intensifying competition.

You may be wondering if we can reach our ambitious targets in GTB.

Let me address that question head on.

Despite the headwinds, we're resolute in our commitment to continue investing in this business and we remain confident of achieving our goals.

In my meetings with you, some of you expressed skepticism about our plans to more than double earnings in Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management.

That's understandable.

This business faces the most significant strategic challenge of all; combining five units into a single integrated asset and wealth-management platform, while sustaining a strong client franchise.

Given that challenge, I'm particularly pleased to tell you that adjusting for costs to achieve, revenues are up year on year, costs are down and for the first half year our reconfiguration of our platform has enabled us to deliver pre-tax profits of around EUR500 million.

The business is on course.

The journey ahead is still a long one, but the achievement so far is promising.

Excluding costs to achieve, the OpEx program and litigation charges, our four core businesses together delivered pre-tax profits of EUR2.5 billion in the second quarter and EUR5.7 billion in the first half of the year.

In both cases, significantly higher than in 2012; that reflects the fundamental operating strength of our platform.

Now let's talk about clients.

You'll remember that when we combined CB&S and GTB's client efforts as part of Project Integra; we took a big step forward in serving clients more efficiently.

Our reconfigured coverage model in Germany, which we rolled out recently, is a similar step forward.

We launched a new private and commercial banking unit within PBC which offers direct local coverage to around 11,500 of our German Mittelstand clients which were covered up to now by CB&S and GTB.

The new unit takes full advantage of Deutsche Bank's unique offering to these clients, a local gateway to our global network and efficient access through one source to our full set of investment banking and transaction banking products.

Germany's Mittelstand is highly globalized and export-oriented.

Local access to Deutsche Bank's integrated global offering, via a network of specialist advisory centers, is crucial for these companies.

So far, we're pleased with the early results.

Finally, let me update you on our progress on our vital objective of placing Deutsche Bank at the forefront of culture change.

When we were developing our strategy, you told us that restoring the bond of trust with society was all-important for our industry and impossible without fundamental cultural change.

Last week, we announced an important step in that journey, with the launch of the six values and supporting beliefs which underpin our cultural-change program.

These define the institution Deutsche Bank aspires to be.

Over the past 10 months, we consulted [YD&DT], we gathered feedback from our stakeholders, including more than 52,000 staff members; Jorgen and I, and the entire GEC, devoted significant time to discussing this with our senior leaders.

The process was intensive, but we wanted something authentic, something that truly came from within Deutsche Bank and something sustainable in the long term.

That meant we couldn't take short-cuts.

So allow me to say a few words about the values that we have launched last week.

Integrity comes first and foremost.

We believe trust is something we must earn.

We don't take it for granted.

To achieve that, we aim to do more than what's allowed.

We aim to do what's right.

Integrity must be supported by an environment in which it's part of every Deutsche Bank employee's job to provide, invite and respect challenge.

We've always had a performance culture and we're proud of it.

Now, more than ever, we emphasize sustainability of performance.

We recognize that excessive short-term focus can actually go against long-term performance.

It's also about how we manage, develop and nurture our talent.

We make a shift from client focus, to client-centrity.

The difference is crucial.

The interest of the clients comes first.

It also means selectivity and suitability, serving the right clients with the products and services and that right for them.

Reconfiguring our Mittelstand platform in Germany, forming a single client coverage group in Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management and integrated our retail banking platform are some examples of that.

Innovation remains a core element of our identity.

We're conscious that some innovation was responsible for problems for the banking sector in the financial crisis.

Our emphasis now is on responsible innovation; innovative ways to solve client needs and to make our overall infrastructure better and more efficient.

Infrastructure is the spine of Deutsche Bank.

Innovative approaches will be key to developing the world-class infrastructure we need.

Discipline is crucial to us in delivering on our targets.

That's how we delivered on capital and we'll apply that discipline to leverage and to strengthening our platform.

When we use the Bank's resources, we aim to think and act like owners.

Additionally, we recognize that rebuilding public trust will be about creating an environment of accountability.

Finally, we've also evolved from teamwork to partnership.

We recognize that we have partners outside Deutsche Bank who may not be on our team, but are vital nonetheless.

Since we launched our strategy, the debate about regulation of the banking industry has grown evermore complex.

It's crucial that we work in a spirit of partnership with the actors in that debate.

We have no illusions.

This is a long-term multi-year effort with challenges along the way.

Between now and the end of 2013, our priority will be to engrain these values and beliefs into the behaviors of the organization; for example, in the way we measure performance and manage consequences.

In summary, we're confident we are well on course to achieve Strategy 2015 Plus.

Now let me hand over to Stefan, and after that, we both look forward to your questions.

Thank you, Anshu; and good morning to everybody for joining us here on our Second Quarter Results Call.

I know it's going to be a busy day for everyone, so let me walk you quickly through the couple of slides that we provided you.

As you can see on page three, the underlying performance of our operating business was strong this quarter.

Each one of our core businesses recorded better year-over-year revenues, while the bottom line was impacted by higher year-over-year litigation expenses as we continued to build our reserves to address the legacy legal risks that we have always communicated to you.

So let's turn to slide four.

On slide four obviously we'll increasingly point your attention to the core bank results as the best indicator of what sustainable performance for Deutsche Bank will be.

As you can see, the core bank continues to deliver consistent revenues and a very low level of loan losses.

On a reported basis, non-interest expenses increased 1% year over year.

On our adjusted basis, non-interest expenses in the core bank decreased 5% year over year to EUR5.4 billion, mostly reflecting the initial savings from our Operational Excellence program.

Pre-tax profitability in the core bank, as you can see, was EUR1.5 billion this quarter, or EUR2.3 billion excluding costs to achieve and litigation.

The core bank achieved a pre-tax return on average equity of 13.2% annualized and 7% on a post-tax basis.

Let me turn on to slide five now.

The revenue environment, as you can see in the second quarter, was decidedly mixed as you know.

For the investment bank, April and May saw strong directional markets across fixed income and equities and good levels of client activity; however, the Fed's tapering comments in mid May led to a broad selloff in June across most of the asset classes and as a result June market conditions were substantially more challenging.

June was characterized by a general re-pricing of credit and lower levels of liquidity, especially in areas of fixed-income trading.

Of course, PBC and GTB revenues continued to face headwinds from near-zero short-term interest rates.

Both businesses have been able to compensate by increasing volumes in their core products and also by increasing fee income.

Despite these challenges, revenues in the core bank increased by 5%, year over year.

On page six, you can see our provision for credit losses in the second quarter was EUR473 million, an increase of EUR119 million from the first quarter of 2013.

Despite the increase, we have continued to experience very low levels of provisions for credit losses.

The majority of the increase this quarter was driven by higher charges in the NCOU, relating to our IS39 portfolio.

Within the IS39 portfolio, the carrying-value-to-fair-value gap has narrowed to approximately EUR800 million from EUR3.7 billion in the fourth quarter of 2009.

On page seven, we show you our non-interest expenses as reported.

Our costs have increased by EUR350 million to 5% year on year.

This includes litigation of EUR630 million and costs to achieve of EUR356 million.

On this slide we also show our adjusted cost base which excludes the effects of costs to achieve, policyholder benefits and claims litigation, impairments of goodwill, other severances and other disclosed one-offs.

This view aligns our external disclosure with the way we manage costs internally; the adjusted cost base decreased by EUR207 million, year over year.

The comparison of first-half 2013 expenses to the first half of 2012, presents a fuller picture of the progress we've made since announcing the Operational Excellence program in July of 2012.

Our adjusted cost base has decreased by approximately EUR580 million.

Litigation expenses were EUR762 million, versus EUR512 million in the first half of 2012.

Timing and size of litigation expense going forward are unpredictable; however, as we have said previously, we have assumed a continued headwind from litigation in our budgeting and capital planning for the next couple of years.

When we go on page eight, we show you the progress on our Operational Excellence Program.

We continue, as you can see, to push forward with our program and the primary objective of the program is obviously to strengthen DB's operational platform.

This quarter we have invested EUR348 million in costs to achieve related to this program, bringing the total to approximately EUR570 million in the first half of the year.

Please note we expect the majority of the 2013 costs to achieve to flow through the second half of 2013, as major initiatives are still in the ramp-up phase.

On the savings side, the first full year of the program has yielded cumulative savings of EUR1.1 billion.

We are well on track to reach our target of EUR1.6 billion in savings by year end 2013.

Let me now turn to slide nine, where we'll provide more transparency on our OpEx initiative.

We've added this chart to enable you to follow the progress as this will report to you progress on the initiatives.

But to start with, as a reminder, the Operational Excellence program is not primarily a cost-cutting exercise.

Firstly, we're aiming to strengthen our operational and control environment by increasing flexibility and create a process discipline.

In turn, this will help us to eliminate duplication and create efficiencies which then lead to sustainable cost savings.

If you can see on this slide, the majority of our initiatives which represent over half the expected savings, have progressed through the program control framework to the validation and execution phases.

In strengthening our platform we have eliminated more than 1000 IP applications and integrated previously disparate retail platforms.

Also the OpEx program is comprised of over 160 initiatives; successful execution of the top-ten initiatives will yield approximately 40% of the targeted savings.

Our progress to date in validating and moving initiatives towards execution and final completion gives us confidence that the plan is proceeding on track.

Turning to profitability on slide 10, you see pre-tax profit was EUR792 million.

Net income was EUR335 million and in the current quarter the effective tax rate of 58% was mainly impacted by expenses that are not tax-deductible and adjustments for income taxes of prior periods.

On page 11, let me start on capital with the current valid regime which is still roughly 2.5, before I talk to our Basel ratios.

As you can see here, we finished the quarter with a roughly 2.5 Core Tier 1 ratio, 13.3%; 120 basis points higher than at the end of the first quarter 2013.

This increase in our Core Tier 1 ratio reflects our capital raised; but also lower risk-weighted assets versus the end of March.

The Tier 1 ratio on a Basel 2.5 basis now stands at 17.3%

Let me turn now to slide 12; over the quarter our Basel 2.5 Core Tier 1 capital increased from EUR39.3 billion to EUR41.7 billion, principally due to the additional EUR3 billion from our rights issue.

Over the reporting period, we also achieved a reduction of EUR10.6 billion in Basel 2.5 risk-weighted assets.

Credit risk, RWA came down by EUR2.8 billion, due to our continued de-risking activities and further assets sales of approximately EUR5 billion, partly offset by business growth in other minor assets.

Operational risk RWAs decreased materially by EUR3.3 billion, benefitting from (inaudible) approving the full integration of post-bank related operational risk in our DB group [ML] model, replacing the previous simple sum of the [parts].

Further reductions relate to foreign exchange, EUR2.1 billion; and market risk down EUR2.4 billion.

Let me now move to Basel 3 on page 13.

As Anshu already discussed, our fully-loaded Basel 3 pro forma Core Tier 1 ratio for June was 10% and we achieved this while adding further to our litigation reserve.

On slide 13 you'll find the same reconciliation from Basel 2.5 to Basel 3, with phase-in fully loaded as we have shown you in previous quarters; we now report EUR367 billion risk-weighted assets on the Basel 3; a EUR52 billion increment to Basel 2.5; EUR2 billion lower than last quarter.

On the capital side, the debt of between Basel 2.5 and 3 are also largely unchanged from prior quarter.

Also, deductions in the fully-loaded scenario are now amounting to EUR18 billion, compared to EUR19 billion in the previous quarter; principally due to the lower [GTA-related] deductions.

We go to page 14; I think this is an interesting slide as we continue on the discussion of RWAs and risk-adjusted leverage versus non-risk-adjusted leverage.

As most agree, leverage obviously fails to assess the quality of the balance sheet as well as the firm's ability to fund itself.

Leverage in our view forces banks to run a very different business.

On the obvious consequence-- is one of the obvious consequences is obviously the need to originate higher yielding assets, and by definition therefore taking on more risk.

Our average loan loss provisions have been 20% of those of some of our peers over the past five years, because of our respective regulatory focus has led us in a very different portfolio composition decision with the focus on higher-quality borrowers.

This slide evidences the clear positive correlation between RWA density and average loan losses, looking at a selected peer group across U.S. and Europe.

This is important difference will not obviously be captured by simple leverage definitions.

Let me now move to-- before I move on to some key current issues, let me move on to the second [quarter] results first.

So on page 16 I start with Corporate Banking & Securities.

As you can see on page 16, CB&S saw a very good start to the second quarter of 2013 as the positive economic momentum from the first quarter continued, leading to tighter credit spreads, higher equity markets indices, strong primary activity and higher client activity levels versus the prior-year quarter.

However, coming from the Fed regarding QE tapering in mid-May resulted in concerns about the direction of central bank's policies across Europe and the U.S. The spike in money market rates in China in June also had a negative impact on market sentiment.

These concerns resulted in a broad decline in activity levels in June 2013.

CB&S performance was strong with revenues increasing 9% year on year, while declining 19% quarter on quarter, reflecting the usual seasonality.

Excluding the impact of Basel 3 RWM litigation CBA and DBA, SB&S revenues were up 13% year on year.

Within this environment, CB&S continued to operate at low risk levels this quarter.

[BAR] declined 7% quarter and quarter and our Basel 2.5 risk-weighted assets are down 19% year on year.

Non-interest expenses were EUR2.9 billion, unchanged from the prior-year period.

Continuing the momentums seen in the first quarter of 2013, non-interest expenses ex-litigation and CTA, were materially lower than the prior-year quarter with reductions in both compensation and non-compensation costs, reflecting solid progress on the Operational Excellence program.

This reduction was driven by lower head count, lower infrastructure costs and other efficiency initiatives.

As you can see on the next page, in the second quarter of 2013 debt sales and trading revenues were down only 11% year on year, despite a marked deterioration in the market environment in the latter half of the quarter, which heightened uncertainty and the selloff across asset classes.

Rates and slow credit revenues were resilient, despite a backdrop of heightened market uncertainty and lack of liquidity and widening spreads in June followed by the market selloff.

FX revenues were significantly higher than the prior-year quarter, driven by another quarter of record volumes resulting in record second-quarter revenues.

DB again topped the Euro Money FX survey for the ninth consecutive year.

RMBS revenues declined significantly compared to the prior-year quarter, as decreased market activity resulted in lower volumes, reflecting specific uncertainty on the Fed's QE tapering.

EM debt revenues were significantly higher year on year, due to a strong performance in slow businesses.

This improvement was most notably in [Latham] where the June market selloff was not as marked as in the other EM regions.

Credit Solutions performance was resilient across businesses, with revenues only slightly lower than the prior-year quarter, which benefited from a significant one-off gain.

The current quarter performance was notably strong in Asia, particularly in the first half of the quarter.

Our debt franchise was ranked number one in the U.S. by Greenwich Associates for the fourth consecutive year.

On the next page you can see the equities revenues that increased 55% year on year, driven by strong cash assets and derivative revenues while prime brokerage revenues remained in line with the prior-year quarter.

Second quarter 2013 equity sales and trading revenues were DB's highest second-quarter equity revenues since 2009.

Cash equity revenues were up year on year, supported by positive market sentiment and the solid performance in electronic trading, amid low liquidity conditions.

DB's performance was especially strong in the U.S. and Europe.

Equity derivatives revenues was significantly higher year on year, driven by increased client activity.

The business reported strong revenues in the Americas and Asia.

Prime brokerage revenues were in line with the prior-year quarter, reflecting stable client balances.

On page 19 revenues in origination and advisory, as you can see, increased by 45% year on year, significantly outpacing fee pool growth; as a result, we continued to strengthen the record market-share position we obtained in 2012.

In EMEA, we continued to rank number one, and our market share increased from the first quarter.

Higher year-on-year revenues in equity and debt origination were offset by lower year-on-year revenues in the advisory business.

In the advisory business, lower market activity, especially in cross-border deals, resulted in lower revenues.

In equity origination, we achieved record market share in EMEA.

DB has a very strong performance in high yield and ranked number two globally.

On page 20, I go to Global Transaction Banking.

Income before income taxes in GTB was EUR322 million in the second quarter of 2013, similar to the last quarter.

GTB continues to face pressure from persistently low interest rates in core markets.

For instance [Theonia] decreased a further 26 basis points year on year, as well increased pressure on margins.

From a regional point of view, the pressure is most pronounced in Asia and EMEA due to the difficult economic environment.

This quarter's revenue performance was partially inflated by a gain from the sale of our Deutsche Card Services business.

In our ongoing businesses, we continued to grow business volumes, for instance, our trade-related volumes increased by approximately 10% year over year.

Loan-loss provisions increased year over year, mainly driven by further provisions related to the [singular] client credit event in trade finance mentioned in the first quarter.

Other than this singular event, we do not see any deterioration of the average risk profile of our portfolio.

Non-interest expenses included CTA, decreased 10% year over year, demonstrating the business's ongoing cost discipline as well as the non-recurrence of integration costs.

We expect the difficult market conditions to persist in the second half of the year, but we will continue to support growth in GTB with the goal to attract increased volumes in our core markets and amongst our core client groups.

Turning now on the next page to Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management, as most of you have noted, integrating our various and Wealth and Asset Management business is one of our most ambitious strategic initiatives and I can really say that the early indications are very positive.

Reported IBIT was EUR82 million for the quarter; however, this includes EUR171 million of costs to achieve.

For the first half 2013 profitability, excluding costs to achieve, increased EUR489 million.

This quarter revenue, excluding the (inaudible) gross up, increased by 6% year over year, driven by higher equity markets and increased client activity.

Most encouraging, the underlying cost base is beginning to reflect the integration efforts.

Resources have been reduced and streamlined; by example total capital demand has decreased by 22% year over year.

Front office head count has declined 9% year over year.

Overall, our adjusted cost base is down 6% year over year and the adjusted cost income ratio is 7 percentage points lower.

The picture on flows this quarter is mixed.

Net inflows of EUR300 million reflect EUR3 billion of inflows into the private bank, which were primarily offset by outflows from our fixed income and cash mandates and to a lesser extent outflows in retail products.

Let me turn now to our PBC business.

PBC again achieved a very strong result in the second quarter with a reported IBIT of approximately EUR500 million, which was the second-best reported quarter since consolidation of Postbank.

Adjusting the reported IBIT for costs to achieve, as well as PPA effects, the IBIT would have been EUR722 million, which is a record result in this adjusted basis.

This quarter IBIT benefited from a positive development in investment and credit product revenues, but also from a few specific items, totaling approximately EUR100 million related to consumer banking in Germany and advisory banking international.

This strong improvement in advisory, brokerage and credit products were offset by weaker revenues from deposits and payment products, reflecting a continued low interest-rate environment and a strategic reduction of deposit volumes, especially in consumer banking Germany.

Our expenses were impacted by higher investments into Postbank integration and other measures as part of our Operational Excellence program.

They also contained a positive non-recurring effect related to the Hua Xia bank credit card corporation.

Overall, our cost to income ratio improved year over year and operating costs continued to trend lower.

Within the client propositions, let me quickly cover them.

Advisory banking Germany IBIT, excluding CTA, increased year over year, reflecting higher revenues from investment products as well as lower provision for credit losses.

In addition, credit product revenues improved, driven by higher volumes in the mortgage business.

Advisory banking international achieved a very strong result.

This was driven by a higher contribution from Hua Xia Bank and also included expanded revenues from investment products across all major countries.

And Consumer Banking Germany, IBIT benefited from certain revenue one-off items and reduced risk costs.

As we have seen last year, CTA has planned to significantly increase in the second half of the year, so we caution you against annualizing the first half-year's results.

So let me turn on page 23 to Consolation and Adjustments; as you can see, pre-tax losses in C&A was EUR205 million the quarter, compared to a loss of EUR72 million in the prior-year quarter.

Valuation and timing differences and positive effects related to shifts of the euro and U.S. dollar interest rates occurred.

The lower level of profitability was also driven by positive effects from the interest income on taxes in the second quarter of 2012, so then let's turn to our last division which is the Non-Core Operations Unit.

As you can see on page 24, once again, the de-risking in NCOU has positively contributed to the Group's capital position.

During the second quarter, we successfully reduced Basel 3 RWA equivalents by EUR11 billion, which included the sale of the legacy U.S. CRA portfolio by PB Capital, further disposals of low-rated securitization assets as well as the roll-out of advanced credit rating and operational risk models.

Our adjusted assets and pro forma Basel 3 RWAs have already fallen below the EUR80 billion year-end target that originally set in 2012, and reflects an acceleration of our de-risking activities while markets have remained constructive for most of the quarter.

NCOU continues to deliver capital accretion for the Group, providing a Basel 3 pro forma Core Tier 1 ratio improvement of approximately 11 basis points in the second quarter, after taking into account the pre-tax IBIT loss.

While asset disposals delivered a net gain in the period, deterioration in market conditions for June has negatively impacted IBIT performance, especially revenues as significant portions of the assets in the NCOU are fair-value accounted and remarked on a regular basis.

I ask you take that into account.

The NCOU reported better-than-expected revenues in the first quarter of this year, which was somewhat offset by the weaker development this quarter.

So on slide 25, it gives you some more detail on the NCOU assets.

I'm happy to confirm that we have now achieved a reduction in both adjusted assets and Basel 3 equivalent RWAs of almost 25% in the first six months of 2013.

Added to our successes in the second half of 2012, we have now generated EUR3.6 billion of capital accretion from NCOU de-risking activities, which equates to a Basel 3 Core Tier 1 benefit of 84 basis points.

During the second quarter, our EUR11 billion Basel 3 RWA equivalent saving included the following notable transactions- approximately EUR2.3 billion in relation to the sale of the legacy U.S. commercial real estate portfolio that we inherited with our Postbank acquisition and savings from sales of other wholesale assets accounted for an additional EUR3 billion reduction.

Basel 3 pro forma RWAs now stand at EUR80 billion, in line with our year-end 2013 target.

We would expect to continue to reduce RWAs for the rest of the year, of course, subject to constructive markets.

From a leverage perspective, we have already surpassed our adjusted asset reduction targets and would expect assets to continue decrease throughout the year.

As previously advised, we do expect the pace of de-risking to lessen over time, and the sale of assets is resulting in an ongoing reduction in underlying revenues.

The reduction of adjusted assets, capital and risk remains at the forefront of our decision-making progress and we will continually evaluate the rationale of exit versus hold to take advantage of market conditions and to optimize and protect shareholder value.

So before I cover the last key current issues, let me now move on to two special topics.

This quarter we have two.

Before obviously the leverage discussion, a few words in response to a media report concerning Deutsche Bank's involvement in certain enhanced repurchase transactions; the accounting treatment we used for those transactions and the implications of those transactions on our capital position; first with regard to Deutsche Bank's involvement in enhanced repurchase transactions, these transactions are widely used and offered by banks internationally as part of normal course of business.

In a standard repurchase transaction we buy securities from a client as collateral for a loan and enter into a repurchase agreement to sell back that security at a later date at a higher value in lieu of interest.

In an enhanced repurchase transaction, the bank may sell this collateral and will settle the repurchase agreement normally with cash.

Typically, the bank hedges the risk inherent in the collateral by means of selling a credit default swap.

The benefit of these enhanced repurchase transactions to clients is that they offer a reduced interest charge on the borrowing undertaken, as the proceeds from selling the [CDs] are effectively partially passed on to the client.

In exchange, the client accepts the risk.

In the case of default, the losses may be higher comparative to a conventional repo.

Based on the nature of these transactions, Deutsche Bank has the obligation to account for the net receivable or payable on its balance sheet, according to international accounting standard IS32.

There is no discretion on that.

Secondly, with regard to impact of these transactions on our capital position, enhanced repurchase transactions are immaterial for our core ratios.

These transactions are negligible for Deutsche Bank's capital ratio or leverage ratio.

Total net debt trading liabilities, which include enhanced repurchase transactions, are around 0.5% of total net liabilities.

I want to highlight as well that the figures provided in the notes for Q1 and Q2 have not changed significantly over the last couple of quarters.

Further, since 2008, these portfolios have never been material as part of our balance sheet.

Now that I think I've bored you enough with lots of results, I'll really come to the key current topic that you've all been expecting, I guess; which is obviously the discussion of our leverage ratios.

So let's turn on page 27 and bear with me as I walk you through our thinking around leverage.

As you know, regulators, politicians and analysts have shifted their focus towards leverage ratios in the past few months.

As you know, there are several methodologies proposed by the Basel Committee, the U.S. regulators, the PRI, the FINMA and the EU; most of the proposals are far from final and/or will only apply to a subset of the group.

For us, as the European institutions, the European capital requirements directive and regulation or CRD4, will be binding.

CRD4 was passed in Europe in June this year which does not currently specify any minimum leverage ratio.

In fact, the definition of ultimate leverage measure and any potential minimum requirement is still subject to an EBA review in 2016, following an extensive monitoring period.

This review will also include a recommendation as to whether leverage should become a hard pillar-one requirement from 2018 on or not.

The CRD4 exposure for leverage purposes largely follows the original PCBS approach as per December 2010.

For us, it amounted to EUR1.583 billion at the end of the June, as you can see on the chart, including a CRD4 growth up of EUR413 billion which includes derivatives based on the regulatory current exposure method, meaning including notional-based add-ons; but with no recognition for collateral, neither cash nor securities.

It includes secured financing transactions that are treated according to the supervisory volatility adjustment approach, a standardized method used by regulators to calculate counterparty credit exposure for [SFTs].

Off-balance-sheet exposures, notably undrawn credit facilities and guarantees extended and other effects like FX or DB claims with regard to collateral paid under (inaudible), CSA agreements, etc.

In terms of capital, CRD4 is using Tier 1 capital under the phase-in and phase-out provisions equally included in Basel.

Regulatory monitoring of leverage results has already started and public disclosure of the leverage ratio under CRD4 would start in the first quarter 2015.

Given regulations are still in flux internationally, and each with a high degree of uncertainty as of the final definition, we heavily caveat our pro forma numbers.

Changes in definition of the leverage ratio may alter the resulting leverage ratios substantially, both up and down.

Whilst we monitor against multiple measures, our primary focus right now is CRD4, which is the legal basis in Europe and obviously the regulation which will ultimately apply to DB Group.

I therefore do not want to drive the speculation any further by presenting numbers under a multitude of definitions, but focus instead on our leverage ratio under CRD4.

Now considering the EUR430 billion CRD4 growth-up per end of June, our pro forma CRD4 leverage exposure at the end of the period was EUR1.583 billion, as I mentioned.

With a Basel 3 pro forma Tier 1 capital of EUR 55 billion, or our CRD4 leverage ratio under the Basel and CRD4 phase-in provisions, amounted to 3.35%.

Then moving to a fully-loaded Basel 3 scenario, but making the assumption that some portion of currently available additional Tier 1 will be replaced with new issuance as the old paper gets phased out, we arrive at an adjusted fully-loaded CRD4 leverage ratio of 3%.

As discussed, CRD4 does not yet set an explicit minimum ratio, nor fixed leverage as a pillar-one requirement, but a 3% minimum would not be unexpected and also seems to be the typical figure used by the market these days.

So on a phase-in basis, we already exceeded a potential 3% requirement, some five years early.

And on a fully-loaded adjusted basis, again assuming replacement of still eligible hybrid, so no AT1 issuance, we today meet such a potential 3% minimum.

As we have seen with solvency ratios, the market has made it clear that fully-loaded is the preferred basis.

We do not however consider that this presents a meaningful picture when looking at Tier 1 capital in the near term.

Firms such as ourselves carry a significant volume of existing AT1 capital, which receives regulatory recognition and which will be phased out over a very long time.

As this existing AT1 phases out, we will issue new electable AT1 to support our total Tier 1 capital base.

As such, we believe that the adjusted fully-loaded capital base, comprising fully-loaded Core Tier 1 Plus or currently eligible AT1, is the most appropriate measure.

Let me be clear.

This is an illustration on how we fulfill regulatory leverage requirements are articulated in the European regulations today, assuming the 3% minimum.

But we understand that market expectations and potential revisions to the current regulation may force us to reduce leverage further and we have all intentions to do so.

So let me give you some further detail on how our thinking is, on the next page.

If you go to slide 29, as I said, we are far from complacent about our leverage position and we have a significant toolbox of actions that we will look to apply over the coming quarters.

You will have seen that we have already significantly reduced our total adjusted assets.

Relative to the third quarter, we have reduced total adjusted assets by EUR100 billion, nearly half from NCOU de-risking.

While we see further opportunities for reductions in our balance-sheet assets, there is also considerable potential to bring down the current CRD4 gross up.

Here we intend to reduce derivatives leverage through more efficient implementation of netting, especially against central clearinghouses and a program of derivative tear-ups and trade compression.

Other measures include closer scrutiny of the volume of unutilized lending commitments.

In aggregate, we are committed to reduce over time our current CRD4 exposure by about EUR250 billion.

While this does not come for free, we believe that any adverse P&L impact is manageable.

According to the due diligence of our leverage task force, we calculate the full impact of utilizing the leverage toolbox could be approximately EUR600 million in one-off costs and roughly EUR300 million of foregone future IBIT.

On the capital supply side, we will see continued contribution from retained earnings, as well as a potential to issue new additional Tier 1 instruments as part of our existing AT1 starts to phase out.

We have now implemented a similar process on the leverage side as we had with our core Tier 1 solvency ratio and we expect this new program to be equally successful in delivering meaningful improvements in our leverage position.

We are obviously aware that to debase regarding leverage is likely to continue.

It is likely we will see proposals which will influence the regulatory framework.

We endorse the goal of building a more resilient financial system.

The actions we take now will move our CRD4 leverage further above the 3% mark, giving us flexibility to comply with various regulatory outcomes.

We remain committed to our current strategic vision in delivering obviously our strategic ambitious agenda and the targets contained herein.

So this ends my presentation and we gladly take your questions now.

(Operator Instructions).

Huw Van Steenis, Morgan Stanley.

Good morning.

Thanks very much for that very helpful run down.

Could I just ask two questions on leverage?

First, when you were talking about the EUR250 billion of possible shrinkage in sheet, does that also include any potential measures you need to take to hit the draft from bank rules in the States?

And then secondly, you mentioned the EUR3 million cost of foregone earnings, so 12 basis points.

Could you perhaps just talk us through what's-- 12 basis points sounds maybe at the low-ish end, but I assume that some of this is repos and the like-- any extra color you can give us on the types of business you might potentially need to shrink?

Thanks ever so much.

Okay, I'll take your questions; first to the U.S.; obviously we have the FBO rules and as you know we have together a plan of asset reduction in the U.S. Some of it, as we have communicated, is effective asset reduction as well that will contribute obviously to our EUR250 billion.

Some of it, obviously, in complying with the FBO requirements we will also take assets out of the U.S. that don't have to be in the U.S. that for historical reasons we have booked in the U.S. We have some repo books out of Frankfort, some repo books out of Tokyo that we book in the U.S. that obviously don't need to sit there.

We consolidate our Mexican subsidiary into the U.S. So these are actions that will not result in reductions but will just result in geographic redistribution of assets.

That was part of the capitalization plan for the United States.

In terms of the cost, it comes from a variety of assets.

I think if you think about our balance sheet being a portfolio of assets, of course we had quite a few assets as well that more or less had 100% cost-to-income ratio and were not performing or had very low ROE and of course in a leverage regime, you cannot afford to hold these assets anymore.

So most of it is coming that you correct; one of the books is the repo book that we'll obviously have to scrutinize and cut a little bit and focus on.

But the rest of the assets are really a big variety of assets.

But don't forget the biggest part of the EUR250 billion is going to come from the CRD4 Gross up which really has no P&L impact.

Okay, thanks ever so much.

Kian Abouhossein, JPMorgan.

Hi, thanks for taking my question.

I have maybe three questions, if I may.

The one is quite detailed- the litigation expenses.

Would it be possible to just split them very briefly between divisions?

That would be helpful.

The second question is on fixed income.

Your decline on a quarter-on-quarter basis was maybe slightly weaker than I expected on [consensus] and against peers.

I was just wondering if you can talk a little bit about the fixed income development, but also how are you seeing the second half with Fed papering expectation; how that could impact your fixed income line.

And the third question is just on the U.S. legal entity.

Clearly, we now have more detailed rules on the U.S. And we know that Basel 3 will apply at a minimum of 3 of assets of $250 billion.

We don't know if that applies to you and I'm wondering if this Basel 3 calculation would apply to you, if so, you've indicated in the past that assets should come down to 300 billion; would you shrink them even further in the U.S.- below 250 if that 3% minimum Basel 3 would apply to you in the U.S. legal entity?

Thank you.

Okay, Kian let me tackle the litigation expense.

About 30% of our litigation is in the NCOU, to give you that break down.

The rest is in the core bank.

And as you know, the largest part of that is in obviously our CB&S business, just to give you a feeling for your-- how to distribute the litigation expense.

Now on the fixed income performance, yes, we had a weaker quarter.

We feel that it's pretty much in line with what we saw based on the weakening of the European market.

We did have the same experience in the-- geographically the U.S. was stronger and therefore it was impacted.

We don't see this as an ongoing weakness.

We just see this as a quarterly result with obviously everything that happened after the Fed tapering.

We actually had a quite good run until that point and see certainly weakening profitability there and weakening activity in the fixed income area since.

And then additionally we are obviously impacted by the situation in Europe.

On the U.S. Basel 3 rules published--will be covered in our FBO project; I think that everything that we read about the rules said that we suppose does not change our view, our position, or did not have an impact on the plan.

We reran our plan.

We revalidated what we want to do and it does not affect us.

Interestingly enough, obviously in terms of our local size as we are significantly below the 700 billion volume threshold that was given out for some of the leverage adders; we are obviously significantly below that in terms of our U.S. and at least from that specific regulation would not be subject to any additional leverage requirements at this point.

But obviously we are still expecting changes for foreign banks to occur and we will have to wait on this.

But currently, I can completely confirm our U.S. plan.

Just to follow up, the U.S. plan is based on U.S. GAAP, but there's also in the new FDIC document clarity that banks which reach-- have more than 250 billion of assets have to have a minimum of 3% and was wondering if you would likely fall into that category or not.

Yes, probably.

We are (inaudible) at 250 but that's the minimum of 3%.

But don't forget that in our previous plan, we had told you that the constraining sector is not the Basel 3 capital, but the constraining factor is the leverage.

So when I discussed the FBO before, it was always the leverage constraint that 200 was driving our capitalization and we to be honest actually used the higher leverage requirement in our assumptions.

By the way, we used those of this higher leverage requirement when we took the hit to our German books, as I described to you at year end, we used the 5 leverage in our assumption.

So therefore, this has not impacted-- we reran the numbers after changes made and our plan is the same and not impacted, because it was always was a leverage driven and not the Basel-3 driven plan.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much, Stefan.

Thanks, Kian.

Jernej Omahen, Goldman Sachs.

Yes, good morning from my side as well.

I have just three very brief questions this time around.

The first one is one page 16.

And you point out in your comments that if you exclude the impact of Basel 3 mitigation, etc, revenues were up 13% year on year rather than the 9% reported.

And I wanted to ask you- how should we think about the difference between this 13% and 9%?

So this EUR135 million of lost revenues per quarter; is this the cost of risk-weighted asset mitigation which we should think about on a recurring basis?

Or is it something else?

That's question number one.

Question number two is just-- you've done a very good job and thank for this, for disclosing the CRD4 leverage ratio.

Could you also give us the Basel 3 leverage ratio as for the most recent proposal?

Because I take your point that the CRD doesn't come into effect; we're waiting for the EBA to complete their studies; but on the other hand, I think that you will or that every bank will have to start disclosing the Basel 3 leverage as of Q1 '15.

But can you also please confirm that my understanding of that is accurate?

And lastly, just a broader question on your targets and profitability; and Anshu made a statement at the beginning saying that Deutsche Bank is reaffirming all of the profitability targets communicated last year.

And I was just wondering, for you 15% return on-- for you 12% return on equity target in 2015, I guess the share count is now higher by broadly 10% since you've communicated those targets.

As I understand it, you've now hit the 10% fully-phased Basel 3 but capital is going to grow further from here.

So what is the implied increase of net income, i.e.

of your profits, in these targets that allows you say that the 12% is still on track, given what's happened to the denominator?

Thank you very much.

Let me go; on your page 16 question; obviously a mitigation of CDB/DBA is take out volatility of debt as a cost of the hedging we do and in that sense, yes it is a cost if you have to think about dealing with volatility.

As you know, what CBA/DBA will do to any P&L is create tons of volatility that over time is meaningless.

So in that sense, obviously as we manage that volatility there is an additional cost associated to that.

That's how you have to think about page 16.

Then on your Basel 3; obviously we recognize that under the proposed and yet to be discussed Basel rules, some exposures get treated less favorably than under the CRD4.

But I will be very clear.

Through the actions that I've outlined, we create a sufficient buffer to also [deal with] the 3% threshold under the proposed Basel rules.

That's what I can tell you about that.

Now in terms of your question on the profitability target of 2015; our plan always included obviously the view that we will have substantially more capital and that obviously our plan needs therefore substantially more profitability than the historic profitability.

Most of this assumption in profitability was a very conservative approach to revenue growth, which we had in the plan; and obviously the substantial cost-cutting and efficiency improvements.

So if you make your math or you if you want to understand how we arrived at that and why we continue to be quite okay; because we don't have a plan that's based on more than an inflation-driven revenue growth.

So we don't see a risk to that plan at this point in time.

To be honest, on current performance we rather see an upside to the plan where if I look at our performance versus in the half year, we are significantly ahead of that plan, despite the fact that our cost-cutting has just shown first results but obviously has not fully taken out a significant portion of our cost.

So that's why we have confidence.

I can confirm to you that we stay in line with our targets.

Okay, thank you very much.

Just on the Basel 3 leverage; can you at least give us a steer as to what you think the difference is between-- not even on the ratio, maybe just on the risk-capture measure, i.e.

on the total assets between CRD4 as you show it and Basel 3.

I gave you the indication that within the mitigation that we announced to you, we'll be able to deal with this.

Think about the mitigation puts it at--- and you can calculate at 3.6 CRD4 ratio with this mitigation and think about that that buffer then also will cover--with the buffer and the reduction we'll cover our exposure increase under Basel 3.

Okay, thank you very much.

[Andrew Stimson], KBW.

Hi guys, thanks very much; sorry if I missed this, but I just wanted to ask you how the AT1 issuance planning is coming along and how the discussions with the regulatory are going and when you're thinking you might issue these instruments to replace that 11 billion?

And then whether you're willing to talk around a timeline for the mitigation of that 250 billion for the leverage?

Thanks.

The discussion with our regulators are ongoing on recognition you know that in Germany this is still an open topic; while in other geographies already the regulatory acceptance of these types of instruments has been clarified.

Therefore, we will get-- for sure we will get resolution hopefully within this year to really understand these structures.

And then obviously as our old issuances slowly run out over time, we will replace them with new issuance as we have articulated.

And assume that the residual-- you know based on the announcement (inaudible), assume that rest of it we will issue toward, till the end of the year of the AT1.

So I think we will be in a very good position in a very short period of time.

And the timeline for the leverage, obviously we have said by 2015 we will have these asset reductions done, but as I described previously the pace of the most significant one can be quite rapidly.

Okay, great.

Thank you very much.

Stuart Graham, Autonomous.

Hi.

I had a few question.

Just on slide 28, the 11 billion of AT1; is this illustrative or are you actually saying you'll run with 11 billion?

Because I always thought you would not run with more than 6 billion which is equivalent to 1.5% of RWAs.

So I'm just trying to understand whether you'll really run with the 11 billion.

The second question then is on your EUR300-million profit guidance.

Does that include the cost of issuing the AT1?

Or is that simply the cost of lost revenues from the 250 billion slim down.

And I guess the third question is back to FIC revenues.

I know you said you're relatively relaxed about it but this is the third quarter in a row that you've missed consensus FIC revenues and I can't remember Deutsche ever missing three quarters in a row.

So I wonder whether there's something going on in terms of your having to shift the business down as you shed assets, etc and we're settling into a lower FIC revenue trajectory than we as the analysts have all thought about.

Thank you.

Yes, I will take two of your questions.

First of all, the first question is the 11 billion.

Honestly my whole calculation is an illustrative calculation; I wanted to show what the potential is.

We are committing to the 250 billion, but then I did an illustrative calculation.

So what I used is our current actuals and took the 10% haircut because that's the amount that goes off every year.

So that's the basis of that number.

Obviously, depending on how the structure comes in, we could issue more or we would not have to do anything; that depends now on how our AT1 structures get defined and get regulatory recognition.

Now if-- the second question was the P&L; that's the result of the specific 250 billion cut, if I understood your question correctly.

Yes, it doesn't include the cost of the AT1 then?

It doesn't include the cost of the AT1.

It's only the asset cut.

But because the level we have; this 11 billion; don't forget in my calculation I used that.

That's my starting P&L- includes the cost of the current actuals- so it's the current actual minus 10%; that's why I obviously didn't put in a difference in it; I agree with you.

If we were to issue more, then obviously there will be obviously an additional cost to that, but that's why my calculation I wanted to only to tell you that with what we have right now, assuming regulatory recognition, it's fine.

This is Anshu.

Let me take you question on fixed income as you might have expected me to.

Now look, we track market share and we track competitive trends very closely.

We don't track consensus as closely frankly, when we judge our division.

So I cannot speak for why analysts see things a certain way.

By our calculations, in the first half of 2013, I believe all our major competitors have now reported.

We finished in third position in FICC.

Yet the gap to number one has widened.

Perhaps that's what is driving some of this consensus.

And if you ask me to speculate, our market share indices are all in line, our peer performance versus average is still pretty good.

But it is possible that a very strong U.S.-fixed income performance mitered the margin and has slightly dampened European performance, might have had an impact.

I would not put this down to any [north] of competitive capacity or impact of de-risking.

The headcount cuts have done, the balance sheet, the usual suspects; we're very sensitive to making sure that those are done in ways that don't impair our performance and I'm confident the new team is on track.

Okay, thank you.

[Michael Hailsby], Merrill Lynch.

Thank you, good morning, gentlemen.

I've just got two quick questions if that's all right.

Firstly, just along leverage actually, can you confirm that your CRD4 gross up is based on the revised June text and specifically that you've used the 40% floors for the payer-fee calculation?

And secondly, sorry if I've missed this; but can you actually break out the 413 billion CRD gross up that you've given for the derivative SFT and off-balance sheet impacts please?

Thank you.

Okay Michael, to your first question is yes, we have utilized these last definitions and our the break up, I will owe you because we haven't disclosed the break up on this gross up.

Okay, thank you.

Jon Peace, Nomura.

Yes, thank I just had two final questions, please.

The first one is in private and business clients, could you just remind me what you said the size of the non-recurring impacts were this quarter both through revenues and expenses with Hua Xia.

And then the second question is- given the good progress you're making on Core Tier 1 and leverage; what does that imply for your dividend policy, bearing in mind the regulator and litigation challenges you have already highlighted?

Thanks.

Let me start on the Core Tier 1; I think at the point we have not change our priority.

We obviously have to build capital first.

It's very important.

We have in our view achieved our 10% which gives us some room to move up and that's the flexibility we get.

Now we obviously over the next couple of months, based also on our proposal and plan, have to look how our plan on the leverage and how the leverage discussion pans out.

We are honestly quite confident that with our plan, we will keep the flexibility as we are already in line with the CRD4 requirements to have flexibility around that point.

But again, we haven't made any decisions or fixed a decision that we have to continue to observe what is on this leverage discussion.

But from a capital point of view, obviously the 10% achievement I think is a milestone in terms of the question that you ask.

In terms of PBC, it was-- we only had one non-recurring item that was a provision release for a business- a separate business joint venture we had with Russia and think about the size of 50 million, about.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Excuse me, there are no further questions at this time.

Please continue with any other points you wish to raise.

Thank you.

So this concludes our Second Quarter Analyst Call.

Should you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to get in touch with us directly in Director Relations.

With that, let me thank you for your interest in Deutsche Bank and wish you all a good day.

Bye-bye.