Good morning, ladies andgentleman. Welcome to the Deutsche Bank analyst call. (Operator Instructions). We will now join you in theanalyst call with Dr. Wolfram Schmitt, Head of Investor Relations. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, Dan. This isWolfram Schmitt. Good morning. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome all ofyou to our third quarter call. With me is Anthony di Iorio, who will performthis call and give a presentation and answer your questions. As usual our disclosure today issupported by a variety of documents. The earnings release, a financial datasupplement, the full interim report and a set of slides, which we will referto. All products, as you know, arecarrying the usual disclaimer regarding forward-looking statements. In theinterests of time, I will not read that out to you, but I trust that all of youwould have read it before we start. With that, Tony, I think youstart your presentation and then we will go into the Q&A session rightafter that. Thank you. Tony?

Thank you, Wolfram, and goodmorning, everyone. As we announced this morning, our earnings in the thirdquarter of 2007 were EUR1.4 billion pre-tax, EUR1.6 billion after-tax and thesenumbers are disclosed on page three of our analyst presentation. The quarter was characterized bya loss in trading positions in Investment Banking and in fact, an overall lossin the CB&S segment reflecting the impact of market conditions. We arepleased though, that the stable businesses of Global Transaction Bank, Assetand Wealth Management and the Private and Business Clients segment performedvery well with earnings of EUR832 million for the quarter. We also had strong contributionfrom Corporate Investments and a positive impact from tax credits and I will gothrough these in detail in just a minute. We are happy also to report that ourTier 1 ratio for the quarter was up. It was 8.8% and that, we believe,demonstrates our commitment to strong capital management. Before I get into the details, Ijust want to reflect back on a disclosure we made on the 3rd of Octoberregarding the anticipated results for the quarter and just compare those to whereour results for the quarter are. On the 3rd of October, weindicated that our expected pre-tax income would be EUR1.2 billion, and infact, it came in at EUR1.4 billion. Our net income, we said, would exceed EUR1.4billion, and it did at EUR1.6 billion. Our CB&S segment, at the time weforecasted would have a loss of between EUR250 million and EUR350 million, andthe loss was EUR179 million. Our sales and trading in threeselected areas that we've highlighted, we anticipated would be in the range ofa loss of EUR1.5 billion. In fact, the number is EUR1.560 billion. And finally,on leveraged finance, we said that we expected a write-down of up to EUR700million in the quarter, and the write-down, in fact, was EUR603 million.…

Thanks, Tony. Ben?

(Operator Instructions). Thefirst question is from Mr. David Williams of Fox-Pitt Kelton. Please go ahead,Mr. Williams.

Hello. Good morning. It's DavidWilliams here from Fox-Pitt Kelton. Obviously, with regard to your commentsjust at the end about extrapolating into the rest of the quarter, UBS,obviously, yesterday was saying October got off to a good start, but they doexpect further write-downs in the business in the investment bank. I just want to ask, is thereanything out there at the moment that makes you think you may have to takefurther write-downs on any of your sort of positions really in any of thecredit markets or otherwise? That would be the first question. And the second question would be,have you got a changed view on prop trading? Obviously, in the quarter it wasdifficult, probably, I guess on the comp driven models and positions and thatcaused some of the losses. Are you scaling back those positions and windingdown some of your prop activities? Or, do you just see the quarter as anaberration, and would expect ongoing to have some contribution from those propmodels as they were previously delivered?

David, as far as fourth quarterwrite-downs, we monitor positions on a daily basis. We look at the markets. Wehave marked both our trading positions and the leverage finance positions asrealistically as we could at the end of September. We believe that those are goodmarks. Experience since has shown us that they probably are. But I don't know-- there's nothing we anticipate, because, if we had anticipated it, weprobably should have reported them at the end of September. So, our marks are based oncurrent market conditions, which could change. As I indicated, although, we'renet short, for example, on the sub-prime, there is basis risk. And what we sawat the end of August with the announcement, we could see other aberrations inthat regard. So at this point, if we knew ofanything, we probably would have recorded it. So, but that doesn't mean thatthere won't be based on market or changes in market conditions. As far as prop trading, we lookat our strategies on a regular basis. I don't think, I think that there aresome strategies, one that we've already shut down on designated prop. We'relooking at our positioning. Our guys look at the markets andtrends, and the best information that they have, and I think from time-to-time,those strategies change. But a lot of that, apart from the change I mentionedjust a minute ago, is based on market conditions. I would add that on ayear-to-date basis, we are showing positive results in both equity prop, whichis down from the prior year nine months, but still positive this year, despitethese write-downs, and designated equity prop. And in designated fixed income,we are also showing a year-to-date profit.

That's great. Thank you.

Thanks, David. Next please.

The next question is from Mr.Jeremy Sigee of Citigroup. Please go ahead, sir.

Good morning. Thank you verymuch. Could I continue, a little bit, the discussion, since you've given it,about how 4Q has started? Because it seems that a number of areas, particularlyin the credit business, are still not functioning normally at the moment. Marketsare still pretty much closed. So, I just wondered, if you could talk about that?And: which areas you're most concerned about looking ahead into early next yearas well?

In the credit markets, as Iindicated, some of the positive results so far have come from those areas thathad big challenges in the third quarter. And that would include credit trading.We've taken down our risk significantly. We are looking at opportunities allthe time. And, so far, I don't know that I would read the market in any way,but the only thing I can report is that the results have been positive.

Okay. And, can I ask a secondquestion on a different subject? Just looking at your share buybacks, they'veobviously been scaled back. The buybacks that are taking place, are theseintended for share-based compensation schemes or cancellation? Or, a mixture ofthe two?

It's probably a little bit ofboth, but the principle at this time during the year except to fund commitmentsto new hires, the share buybacks would principally be as part of our sharebuyback program. Our biggest share buybacks would obviously come inanticipation of hedging the grant, which will be made next February. So, it's amixture of both, although I would probably lean towards a larger componentbeing the share buyback program.

Okay. Thank you very much.

The next question is from Mr.Michael Rohr of MainFirst Bank. Please go ahead sir.

Yes. Hi. Good morning. It'sMichael Rohr from MainFirst. Just, two questions remaining. First of all on theremaining exposure, you've given us the details on LBO and CDO exposure. However,maybe I've missed that can you clarify the exposure on the residential mortgagebacked securities a bit more? And: how this evolved during the quarter? And,especially: what write-off rate you took there? And secondly a question on thestaff costs especially on the personnel expenses. We've seen that they fell offpretty quickly and I just wonder, given the sharp fall-off: whether there'sanything special in there apart from your formula that you usually use? Thankyou.

Michael, on the residentialmortgage exposures, what's left on our books on the long side is almost allprime. As I indicated, the sub prime is a very small component. It's indecimals. And, as far as the prime, we've taken it down about to half of whereit was at the beginning of the quarter and it's in the high single digitscurrently. Although we're moving this position, we're buying, selling, and Idon't want to get into too much, this is a very actively, as all of ourpositions are, managed book. So, I'd prefer not to go beyond that, becausethere are competitive issues here.

Sure.

As far as staff costs areconcerned, as I said the third quarter was driven -- if you look at the accrualrates, there are higher accrual rates in certain businesses than others. So,where our accruals came down because of the year-to-date adjustments, thosewere the higher effects, higher percentages. That said, we anticipate thefourth quarter to be back to our normalized, but let me add a couple of things. First, there is no bonus per seon the corporate investments P&L. So, because of the size of that in thecurrent quarter you can't just look at ratios and that's why you have to lookat absolute monetary trends. In addition to that, we didbenefit on the bonus accrual for one with the weakening of the dollar. The neteffect was less than 100 million as I remember, but, nevertheless, that had aneffect. So, depending on what happens to currencies, depending on what happensto performance, we're going to see whatever the fourth quarter bonuses are. We're not storing up bonuses torecord them. We've applied the formulas consistently throughout the year. Andthat's the effect.

Alright. Thanks very much.

You're welcome Michael. Thanks.

The next question is from Mr.Dieter Hein of Fairesearch GMBH. Please go ahead sir.

Yes. Good morning. I would liketo ask two or three questions. First, I'm very interested on your personalopinion, Tony, regarding: how reliable are the evaluation adjustments on theglobal investment banks in the third quarter? Is it possible to compare, forexample, the charges Goldman Sachs made with the charges of Merrill Lynch, orwith Deutsche Bank, in your point of view? And: do you think we've got from thebig auditor companies, together with the accountants from the big banking companies,together with the watchdogs like SEC, general standards to evaluate all theseitems? And, the question regarding yourevaluation adjustment of EUR2.2 billion: Where did you use a mark-to-marketevaluation and where mark-to-model evaluation? Maybe you could break up in thisyour EUR2.2 billion? Thanks.

Okay. I don't know that I'dventure a personal opinion, but the fact that I'm the CFO and we're putting outthe numbers. Dieter, we would not have published these numbers if we were notcomfortable with the valuations. Now that said, in certain partsof our balance sheet there is judgment, because you can't go out and findmarks. However, in applying that judgment we have done it consistently with theway we've done it in the past. There has been independent review away from thebusinesses by finance and market risk management. We discussed this in our secondquarter call as to our practices and policies. We continued that fully. So, webelieve that our evaluations are correct based on market conditions at the endof September. With regard to the auditors,we've had extensive discussions with a number of accounting firms to help usinterpret, principally with KPMG, but we have engaged in discussions withothers as to how to apply valuation methods. The accountants published areport, a white paper in the third quarter. Three of them in fact, one of themon valuations, second on accounting for leverage finance commitments and athird on accounting for asset-backed commercial paper conduits. In all three wecompared what was said in those papers to what we were doing. And we found thatwe were totally consistent. So, concerning the methodologiesthat we've used, which is not the only question you've asked, they areconsistent with the best thinking and the guidance provided by the accountants.With regard to where we've used judgment for mark-to-model versusmark-to-market, we would wish that there would be more observable marks in themarket. That said, if you're at theleading edge in terms -- with other firms, in terms of product development andactivities, it is sometimes difficult to find observable marks. We arepreparing to disclose our level one, level two, level three data at the end ofthe year and I indicated this at the other quarter. And, although we're notready at this point to disclose actual numbers, I can tell you, based on theanalysis that we have done in preparation for the disclosure at the end of theyear, our level three assets and liabilities are directionally proportionate inthe absolute with where the other U.S.firms have disclosed. And the ones we've seen so far are the August quarterends, because we've seen that data in their 10Qs. So, on an absolute level: When we start publishing thisnumber we're going to look a lot better as a percentage of assets at fairvalue. And the reason for that is that IFRS requires a gross-up of certaintrading assets, derivatives and others, liabilities that would be netted underU.S. GAAP. So, the base against which the percentageswill be calculated are a much higher base, therefore the percentage is a lotsmaller. And I've mentioned and that's why I think we've got to focus and weshould all focus on the absolute number. But it is, directionally, the same inabsolute terms. But we'll deal with that at the end of the year.

Okay, Dieter?

Yes.

Can I make a quick announcement?I'm hearing from the moderator about the long queue of attendees who would liketo raise a question. May I suggest, ask, if everybody limits to one question aswe want to serve everybody. Thank you. Let's go on.

The next question is from Mr.Philipp Zieschang of UBS. Please go ahead sir.

Morning. You've mentioned thatactually you were about to reallocate some resources within the investmentbank. Could you just comment in terms of what areas you perceive to show thehighest structured growth rates going forward? Because, obviously, structuredcredit, where you probably had a profit contribution of 25% to the group,somewhat, in terms of growth engine somewhat questioned. So, about your futuregrowth pockets within the (inaudible) great if you could just comment on that.Thanks.

Thank you, Philipp. We're stilllooking at things and I think it's premature, and certainly I shouldn't makethat announcement here. But we are studying where we are allocating capital,the returns we're making on the capital, what the markets are telling us andwhere opportunities are. We're a global firm. We're interested in expanding ourglobal platform and we're interested in renewing our product array and thoseare the principles underlying this review. And it's something we do all thetime. If we weren't doing it now, after the third quarter, we would obviouslybe remiss. But, I think, it's premature Philipp, but you'll see in futurequarters where those changes are.

Thanks.

You're welcome.

The next question is from Mr. JonPeace of Lehman Brothers. Please go ahead sir.

Good morning. I had a question oncapital management. We heard from UBS yesterday that Basel II was going to costthem, maybe, around 50 basis points. So, I just wondered: what your currentthinking was with respect to Basel II? And, in that context, you've obviouslygiven us a plan to raise your dividend payout. With Basel II on the horizon,and after a tough year: do we still expect the payout to rise from the currentmid-30s in 2007? Or: is it going to take a little bit longer to reach the goalof a 50% payout? Thanks.

Jon, as far as Basel II, we'restill working through this and we're still working with the regulators in termsof model approval. So, we're not ready, although I think we have given numbersin the past. We expect, based on our current risk profile and expectation, thatwe will apply the advanced approach, which we're hopeful of and we're workingtowards that, and there's nothing to indicate that we won't. We see our Tier 1ratio being somewhere over nine, maybe as far as the mid-nines. So, if you usenine point plus, I think, you'd probably have a good sense. But again, I don'twant to state a number that we're not comfortable on the footing. As far as the dividend isconcerned, we have already accrued, or set aside as part of our Tier 1 capital,it's not an accounting accrual, but it's a calculation accrual, a dividend ofapproximately EUR4.12. So our Tier 1 ratio is based on a capital that at 37% ofour net income assumes or as a charge in there for a dividend equivalent ofEUR4.12. That compares to EUR4.00 for last year. The ultimate decision ondividends is a recommendation by the Supervisory Board to the Annual GeneralMeeting, so I would not assume or presume to state what it's going to be. Wehave our goal to 50%. We will work towards that goal, but, obviously, we wouldalso have to reflect our capital management, our opportunities for growth aswell and what our earnings potential is. But we're very encouraged by where weare, the dividend has come up significantly. But that's where we are.

Great! Thanks.

You're welcome Jon.

The next question is from Mr.Stuart Graham of Merrill Lynch International. Please go ahead sir.

Hi. Firstly, thanks for the extradisclosure, that's very useful. I just wanted to ask on the CDO exposure, whichyou said you managed down from 10 billion to 1 billion. Could you give me somecolor on: how you achieved that? Which is obviously a very good performanceover Q3, please.

Stuart, a lot of that came --none of it was moved and you haven't implied that, but none of it was moved outof trading into other categories of the balance sheet. So, in case anyone hasany thoughts of that, it came from sales and closing down derivative positions.And so it was just taking down our risk.

So: these were genuine sales? Itwasn't that you were hedging positions? You actually managed to sell thesepositions down?

That's correct, yeah. We tookdown some strategies more than others considerably, but that's correct.

In that context the 465 millionhit you talked on correlation trading seems quite low. 465 on shifting 9billion is only like a 5% haircut and I wouldn't have thought that people wouldhave been buying these assets at only a 5% haircut in Q3. Or: am I missingsomething?

Some of the confidence we have inour marks is based on the fact that we did see realization on sales or closingdown derivative positions. So, we were able to use that experience to look atour verification. I don't want to start talking about individual trades andcertainly I don't have in front of me all the positions, so whether there hasbeen some additional hedging, but what I do know, in some of the positions, isthat we genuinely took down through sales.

Okay. Can I just squeeze onequestion on generally in structured finance? Your exposure to US monolines, ifyou could just comment on: how bigger it is? Is that a significant issue for yououtside of CDO space, more generally in structured finance business?

I don't think we want to talkabout the individual or specific exposures. We monitor them carefully. I thinkin the aggregate they're not, relative to the size of our loan book or evenour, so some of these our derivative positions to our trading assets are notsignificant, but we are monitoring what's happening in that sector verycarefully. If things do change we certainlywill react in terms of both protecting our risk, as well as what we record inthe books. But, the total exposure is not significant or material relative toour overall exposure.

Okay great! Thanks for thedisclosure. Thank you.

Thanks Stuart. Next please?

The next question is from Mr.Kian Abouhossein of JP Morgan. Please go ahead sir.

Yes, hi. I have a questionregarding your balance sheet. It's the first time that we're seeing over eightquarters you're actually reducing your total assets. And I was wondering: ifthis is a trend that will continue within the group considering your fundingcosts on inter-bank and term that has gone up significantly? And in addition, I'm just tryingto understand: if you are thinking about reducing your financial assets at fairvalue which are materially higher even on a US GAAP adjusted basis to yourpeers? Do you see any change in your overall balance sheet asset size over thenext year or so?

Kian, I would not say that wedon't reflect on the absolute size of the balance sheet, but our principalfocus is on risk. And so, risk-weighted assets are how we manage the balancesheet size. Certainly, we do look at absolute balance sheet. I would not readanything; we've taken down some risk, as we talked about in this call. But, Iwould not see any strategic move or strategic implication from whether or notthe trend is up or down. As far as financial assets atfair value: Fair value has a discipline and requires a discipline. Now, that'snot the question you asked. So, we're not troubled at all that a good part ofour balance sheet is in fair value, because each morning we wake up and we findout what happened the day before and we're able to test those marks on aregular basis and so, understanding: where we are? And: what risks we have? Isvery important. If your question is: is our riskappetite reduced? And: are we going to take down our risk positions? I think wesee opportunities in the markets and, as we see opportunities and we think awell-capitalized bank that has good funding sources and stable sources offunding is in a very strong position to take advantage of opportunities as theycome up. So, we certainly will look at risk prudently. I'm just looking at the balancesheet size and I draw your attention to one category that maybe is driving oris creating some volatility in the effect and that's other assets and otherliabilities. And in fact our balance sheet is going up instead of down. But:maybe you were talking about financial assets? I don't know which, because thebalance sheet is going up. It's down from the second quarter, but if you lookat where that…

Yeah, sorry, from the secondquarter, that's what I mean. So, it's been growing fourth...

If you look, other assets,financial assets are down marginally.

Yeah.

Other assets are down from EUR252billion to EUR215 billion. The biggest item in there is trade-based settlementdate receivables. And that's going to move the same thing by the way on otherliabilities. It's trade-based settlement date liability. So, depending on tradingactivity, depending on where settlements are and periods, settlement periods,that number is going to move up and down. I hope that answers your question.

And: if I may follow-up on that?Is there any drive by local regulators to look more at leverage ratios ratherthan just Tier 1? Do you get any demand from local regulator to look at thatratio a bit more?

We have not heard of one, wedon't know of any, Kian. They might be thinking about it. But it's the riskinherent because if someone had a very large book of gilts and bunds and USgovernments and someone else had a smaller balance sheet and higher gearingratio, better gearing ratio, I'm sorry, higher gearing ratio or capital ratio.I don't know what that would tell you. I think you've got to look at the riskand, as far as we know, that's what the regulators are focused on.

Okay. Thanks.

Next please?

The next question is from Mr.Joachim Muller of Cheuvreux. Please go ahead sir.

Yeah. Hi, it's Joachim Muller.Just a technical question on your leverage finance book: The EUR40 billion thatyou have in your trading book, at what stage, let's assume it will be difficultto sell down most of that book: at what stage would they become sort of likehedge maturity and you would have to reclassify them? And: what kind of impact wouldthat have on your risk-weighted assets weighting and Tier 1 impact? Maybe youcan comment on that a bit?

Yes. Joachim, once we'veclassified them as trading they will stay in trading. So, the commitment here isin trading. We looked at, as I said earlier, where the intent was. Based onthat intent, we have classified them. If they are classified as tradingunder IFRS, we don't have the latitude of even changing them, unless there wasa mistake in the classification. Under US GAAP there may be some latitude. So,we will not change those.

So, even if there was nopossibility, because of the market conditions, to sell them?

We would still have to keep themin trading as far as we understand and they would still be mark-to-market. Now,as far as regulatory capital is concerned, they could stay in the trading bookas trading assets I believe for 180 days from the time that they're funded. After that 180 days they would beclassified for regulatory purposes as banking book assets and therefore take ahigher capital charge. So, in terms of reported balance sheet, there won't be achange. As far as regulatory treatment, if they're here for longer than 180days there will be a change.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

The next question is from LucaOrsini of One Investments. Please go ahead. Luca Orsini, please go ahead andask your question.

Probably gone. Shall we move on?

The next question is from Mr.Carsten Werle of Oppenheim Research. Please go ahead sir.

Yeah, hi. Carsten Werle,Oppenheim. Good morning. In the October performance update that you gave, youprovided us with number of EUR32 billion for Deutsche Bank-sponsored ABCPconduits. Is this number still correct? And, am I right to assume that themajor part of this EUR32 billion is on your balance sheet, not off balancesheet? And, perhaps, for those parts which are off balance sheet; you couldstill give us some indication which is dollar denominated assets and what's ineuro?

Yeah. The EUR32 billion was thenumber at September 30th. The latest report I received would indicate that,that number if it has moved has not moved materially. So, assume it's stillEUR32 billion. Of that EUR27 billion is consolidated on our balance sheet andif you look at the interim report, it's included in a category called, “It'sAvailable for Sale”. And part of itis in “Available for Sale” and partof it is in “Loans”. So the loan portion of that is about EUR15 billion. The “Available for Sale”portion is approximately EUR11 billion, so there's some rounding there, butthat's the EUR27 billion. Five is not on our balance sheet. The five is neitherin dollars nor in euros. I believe it's in Australian dollars. Probably, it'sin Australia.And the reason we don't consolidate it is that under the accounting rules wehave no direct exposure, the assets would revert to the seller upon default. We should talk about why we havethese sponsored conduits. The intent of these is to provide access to thecommercial paper market to customers who generate loans of their own. And theseare normally commercial companies, but it could be some financial companies,who want access to the commercial paper markets. And, as part of our business, weprovide them that access. But, because of the terms of the agreement, we needto consolidate them. So, the number of EUR32 billion is there and I hope thenumbers I've given you have helped you.

Yeah. Many thanks.

You're welcome.

Thanks Carsten.

The next question is from Mr.Stefan Stalmann of Dresdner Kleinwort. Please go ahead sir.

Yes. Good morning everyone. Ihave one question please regarding the development of your risk-weighted assetsand in particular the fact that it does not seem to show any sign of growingcounter-party risks from your derivative book. I'm actually quite puzzled to seethat your derivative marks during the quarter have hardly risen despite the substantialjump in volatilities across the board. Could you explain why the derivativemarks on mark-to-market values have hardly risen? And, why there has been noreflection of possibly rising counter-party risks on your derivative book inyour risk-weighted assets? Has there been any change in theway that you account for these positions? Or how you measure the risk weightingcoming out of that? Thank you very much.

Yeah. Stefan, there has been nochange in the way we account for Derivatives and the marks are falling throughas they have, depending on levels, from quarter-to-quarter. The risk-weighted assets went upjust about EUR3.5 billion and if you are interested in the breakdown of that Ican give it to you. And there was an FX benefit. Derivative component is upabout double that, so somewhere in the 7 billion range. The derivativecomponent of risk-weighted assets. Loans were down undrawncommitments are about flat. Other commitments are up by about 4.5 billion, 4.4billion and the FX had about just over 6 billion positive, so it reduced therisk-weighted assets. So, if you would look at it, theFX benefit from the weakening dollar, for example, pretty much offset theincrease in the derivatives. And so, what was left came from other assets andliabilities including contingent assets and other securities and assets.

Okay, Stefan?

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, in theinterests of time I suggest we'll take three more attendees with questions.

The next question is from Mr.Georg Kanders of WestLB. Please go ahead sir.

As you have announced somerestructuring; do we have to assume that there will be a significant restructuringcost in Q4?

We say, we've announcedrestructuring, this was in the US,one business MortgageIT we had some restructuring. We're not anticipating anyrestructuring program. We're still looking at plans as to refocusing, but, atthis point, we're not anticipating, we're not planning or restructuring. But,plans aren't done yet and that doesn't preclude that there won't be, but at thecurrent time and -- we don't anticipate.

Georg, I think it's important tosay, we said it [and we showed] as well that we may make some adjustments inorder to refocus some resources. We haven't mentioned restructuring and,therefore, we don't mention restructuring costs. Okay?

Okay.

Thank you. Next please.

The next question is from Mrs.Anke Reingen of Execution. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Yes. Anke Reingen, Execution.Just one question on the diluted number of shares; we have seen ongoingdecline. Is this a trend we should expect to continue? And: is this actually areal decline in the number of diluted shares? Or, will we see those sharesbasically working back to higher levels at some point? Thank you.

I don't think I'd, Anke, viewthat as a trend. There're some technical issues for the reduction. One of thosehas to do with the restructuring of some hedges on shares with regard to theREU program. And then other parts are just due to both the exercise of optionsby our employees, which moves from diluted to -- if you look at the sharesissued in the third quarter went up and part of that is just a shift. So, thereis no trend I'd read into that.

Thank you

Next please.

The next question is from Mr.Kinner Lakhani of ABN Amro. Please go ahead sir.

Yes. Hi. Good morning. I justwanted to focus on the 2008 target, particularly in relation to corporatebanking and securities. You do talk about confirming your target subject tonormal conditions. So, my question is what are normal conditions for the fixedincome or the debt sales on trading revenues? Are you thinking more 2006, '05,'04? And how do you contextualizethis? Particularly with regard to the intellectual capital businesses whereDeutsche Bank is overweight, but where in certain areas it's likely thatactivity will take a long time to come back to recent levels?

Again Kinner, I don't know thatI'm qualified to state, but let me tell you what I think normal marketconditions are. And I don't think I'd go back and look at any one period,because what is normal might be different in the future. I would look at twoissues. The principal issue is liquidity.And so for conditions to be normal there has to be liquidity, meaning frominvestors, buyers, that returns to the market. And we're beginning to see somesigns of that, although it is early. And I think we would want more time andwant to see that develop further before declaring victory on that regard. The second is volatility. Nowvolatility in a way helps us, but if things perform in a more orderly way thatwould also help us. So, it's when the market has the feeling that risk isappropriately priced, when that happens. And as I said, because liquidityis returning, at least there is some indications that certainly could beinterpreted as people believing prices are reflecting risk reward. And we wouldsee it where there's neither a boom nor a bust. So, maybe that doesn't answeryour question, but, as I said at the beginning, I don't know that I could -- oram qualified to define that and it may be different tomorrow from where it wasyesterday. Kinner?

Thank you.

Thanks.

With that we would like to closeour call over one and a half hours into the call. Thanks everybody. If we mighthave cut somebody short, please come back to the Investor Relations team. Weare more than happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you and goodbye.