Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Fourth Quarter 2012 Conference Call of Deutsche Bank. For today’s recorded presentation all participants will be in a listen-only mode. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session. (Operator instructions)

Thank you. Good morning ladies and gentlemen. On behalf of Deutsche Bank I would like to welcome you to our fourth quarter analyst call from Frankfurt. By now you should have access to all of our publications, which you will find on our website. Anshu Jain, our Co-CEO will kick off this call, and provide the highlights of our full year results. Our CFO, Stefan Krause, will then walk you through our financials in detail. As usual, please take notice of the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking statements at the end of the presentation. And with that, I will hand over to Anshu.

Thank you, Joachim, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. As you have seen, our revenues in the fourth quarter were resilient despite a difficult environment, EUR 7.9 billion in revenues, up a billion on the same quarter in 2011. Most pleasingly our Basel 3 core tier 1 ratio now stands at 8%, 80 basis points ahead of the 7.2% target that we set ourselves for the end of 2012. However, we do have a pre-tax loss of EUR 2.6 billion in the fourth quarter, and a full-year profit of EUR 1.4 billion, which is way below the EUR 5.4 billion that we had in 2011. This reflects a number of decisions that we have taken, especially in the fourth quarter, many of which have been taken to position Deutsche Bank well for the future. Let me walk you through some of those decisions. The non-core operations unit has taken a full year loss of EUR 2.4 billion, of that there is a EUR 1.1 billion loss in the fourth quarter. But equally has given us a reduction in risk-weighted assets of EUR 29 billion, which in the net is a capital generation of EUR 2.5 billion to significantly net accretive. So now if you move to slide three, you can see we have galvanized Deutsche Bank around the creation and the achievement of our capital targets. When Jurgen and I presented our full-year plan and project 2015 in September, we reflected the feedback from clients, regulators, employees, analysts and investors, which was clear. Capital had to be our top priority. Jurgen and I are very glad and very pleased with the team, which have actually acted across all aspects, pulled every lever in order to be able to [achieve us] to attain this target. Let me point out some very…

The results this quarter were clearly impacted by the management actions taken as part of the implementation of the bank’s new strategy, which I will walk you through in a moment in a couple of slides that you have in front of you. However, I would like to point out that our proposed dividend remains at EUR 0.75 a share, and our capital ratios under Basel 2.5 again improved substantially. Total adjusted assets came down, while liquidity reserves increased again now also including the contribution from Postbank as you can see in our (inaudible). Let me move on to page nine, as you can see here for the quarter the group reported a pre-tax loss of EUR 2.6 billion, of which EUR 1.5 billion is attributable to our core bank, and EUR 1.1 billion from our non-core operations unit. The true underlying earnings are more accurately reflected when excluding the two non-operational and specific items in the quarter, approximately EUR 1.9 billion for the impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets, and EUR 1 billion for significant litigation related charges. On this basis, as you can see in the chart, for the first quarter we present an adjusted pre-tax profit of EUR 287 million for the group and EUR 978 million for the core bank. These numbers are not adjusted for additional specific items, which are considered to be outside our normal operation, including cost-to-achieve and other restructuring charges. On page 10, you see that the core bank’s reported pre-tax profit for the full year 2012 was EUR 3.8 billion. Adjusted for the same and aforementioned major nonoperational items, as you can see here in the chart, pre-tax profit of the core bank was EUR 6.5 billion. Let me move on to page 11, the table provides you with an…

So, I think we have our first question there. Could you please identify yourself, and ask the question?

(inaudible) please go ahead with your question.

Sorry, yes, good morning. Thanks very much for that update and very helpful in particular on risk-weighted assets. I was wondering if you can give a bit more perspective on proposed Fed rules. You mentioned it had – may not have any further when you've taken the P&L impact into account. But as you think about the breadth of your business and the potential impact on return on equity, could you perhaps give a bit more color about how you're thinking about the potential impact of the proposals? Thank you.

Well, for us obviously the proposals mean that obviously we will have to allocate some more capital to the United States at some point in 2015. So this is ahead of us. As you know, we have been looking at our businesses overall on a global basis in terms of their return on capital and much of the derisking that we have done was focused on areas where we had lower profitability, some of that were also US businesses. After the impairment we took now in our local books, we are prepared and we would be and able to do in the capital position. We do think though and our concern is really on an international context of global banks, really not very helpful in terms of helping a global financial market to properly work. That is why we are quite confident and hopeful that some revisions to the framework today. But that is the broader question. For example, while our technical abilities to provide the capital and our need for Additional capital at this point, we don’t need any further capital at this point. But we have to wait until the final rules come out, and then, I hope you understand, what the capitalization requirements are principal.

Thanks for your answer.

And the next question is from Kian Abouhossein from JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Yes, hi Anshu and Stefan. Three questions, and the first one relates to your target for 2015 first quarter where you clearly want Basel 3 of 10% plus as outlined in the investor day, now that you are already moving to 8.5%, how do you think about capital movement into 2015, the 10%, is that something that you feel could also be potentially brought forward, that is the first question. The second question is regarding portfolio optimization, can you outline a little bit more what is actually portfolio optimization, the 15 billion, what you are doing there. And the third question comes back to the holding in the US legal entity, can you because you mentioned several things that you could do, one of them you mentioned capital injection, but you also talked of intragroup liability movements, so really can you just say that whatever happens that there will be no share count increase in Deutsche Bank even if there needs to be a capital injection into the US legal entity, can you rule that out by any chance? Thanks.

Yes, hi Anshu and Stefan. Three questions, and the first one relates to your target for 2015 first quarter where you clearly want Basel 3 of 10% plus as outlined in the investor day, now that you are already moving to 8.5%, how do you think about capital movement into 2015, the 10%, is that something that you feel could also be potentially brought forward, that is the first question. The second question is regarding portfolio optimization, can you outline a little bit more what is actually portfolio optimization, the 15 billion, what you are doing there. And the third question comes back to the holding in the US legal entity, can you because you mentioned several things that you could do, one of them you mentioned capital injection, but you also talked of intragroup liability movements, so really can you just say that whatever happens that there will be no share count increase in Deutsche Bank even if there needs to be a capital injection into the US legal entity, can you rule that out by any chance? Thanks.

Good morning Kian. I will take your first question and then Stefan will take your next two. Look, as Stefan has said already, it is not just the US, but we can actually see in a number of locations, we could get regional fragmentation potentially, too early to say. So the reality is that the eventual capital target is a moving piece. We cannot commit right now to exactly what the optimal destination would be. We had said to use the rule of thumb. We were looking around 100 basis points of accretion in capital per annum. I have no reason to believe that that would be any different. Undoubtedly once we achieve our optimal level of capital, our focus would be on returning as much free cash flow back to investors as we possibly can. That has always been our commitment. Exactly what that final target would be would be in part a result of how we see the regulatory activities falling, in particular once we see how the global situation stabilizes. There is no doubt about the fact that we are significantly ahead of the capital planning numbers that we had shown you back in September, and this organization remains galvanized around capital. That is the key message which everyone should get. We said we would put capital at the forefront of all of our medium-term activities. It continues to be the case.

Okay, Kian, good morning as well. And to your portfolio optimization at the end of the day, we will look at it as a combination of asset sales and hedges, yes. The reduction (inaudible) to a large extent related to securitization positions. As you know, under the Basel framework there is punitive capital requirement. And obviously these numbers do not include any model or process deliveries. They are separate. So this is hedging to be more specific, and obviously improvements we can do in terms of optimizing our weak position, on this position, and it is mainly targeted at securitization. You are asking a very difficult question on US regulation as it is not finalized yet and the implications. First of all, what we can say from today’s perspective we would not have to really move cash in order to provide the capitalization in the United States. But of course we will not provide capitalization that would not provide future good returns for our US – to our investors globally. If our US business does not provide adequate returns for us, we therefore hope that the capital requirements remain, you know, somewhat acceptable in light of the profitability we can achieve. In terms of including or excluding any measures, you could have asked the same question, would you significantly reduce our US activities, that is obviously one option. We would increase capital is the other option. It is too early for us to tell, or include or exclude anything because we have a framework that we can’t really say much about at this point in time. But these will be two options, we either have to significantly reduce our US activities. The worst outcome is the one that comes through that obviously the international community is hoping that will not be the stance of the US in this case, or we would have to – but at this point in time, we have the capital in the group to supply. What we had to do is we had to take an impairment in our standalone German accounts. We did make the decision to take it. So we are prepared to move if it is required.

And can I just follow up on that Stefan, would it be possible to issue debt instruments such as close to maybe inject on the tail-end to inject capital into the US, would that be potentially – could that be an option?

And can I just follow up on that Stefan, would it be possible to issue debt instruments such as close to maybe inject on the tail-end to inject capital into the US, would that be potentially – could that be an option?

This is certainly one of the options that are in discussions, and it is one of the options that could be a solution to some of the topics. Again the rules are not final, yes, please take my comment that it is really early guesses rather than any really estimates because the rules are just not final. So it is very difficult to say how it turns out to be. What we – the very clearly have to obviously say that obviously we hope that in terms of the international community and keeping financial services market and liquidity in that available, that we do consider that global operating banks need to have free movement of capital and funding to properly function. And that I think is hopefully what at the end the outcome will be.

Great. Thank you. Anshu and Stefan.

Great. Thank you. Anshu and Stefan.

The next question is from Jon Pearce from Nomura. Please go ahead. Jon Pearce – Nomura: Yes, good morning. Can I ask two questions please, the first one is just looking at your fixed income trading performance, and comparing the quarter-on-quarter and year-on-year with the US peer group, it was a little bit softer, I just wondered if you had any comments around that. And the second is I wonder if you could give any guidance to the longer term about your gross assets, I know you prefer to present your balance sheet on an adjusted basis, but obviously Basel 3 is quite prescriptive and it is a challenging target to met, so beyond the gross asset reductions that come out of the non-core unit, do you have any picture of the broader balance sheet, and if you are reducing gross assets, what the cost of that could be in terms of profitability? Thank you.

Jon, if you have been studying Deutsche Bank’s performance over the last decade, I will take your first question, Stefan will take your second one. We have pronounced seasonality in our performance, particularly in the investment bank. Fourth-quarter tends to be a slower quarter for us. We have studied this very closely. Potentially it has something to do with the geographic mix of our business, which is a little more Europe and Asia tilted to an extent. Yes, we have underperformed our US peers, but not by a dramatic margin, and in line with the seasonality in prior years.

Before I answer your second question I wanted to add something to Kian’s question, why we have difficulties in assessing, if obviously the US rules were to come in the extreme case, what you have to keep in mind that there will be retribution, or we expect retribution from European regulators on that. And that is what makes this difficult to assess what it really means to us in terms of what our capital flexibility will be on a global basis, and how we could move, and how we have to think about allocating capital on a global basis. So I think the US side is something we have a little bit more clarity, but in our thoughts for the longer term, we think about retribution that in our view will certainly occur if the rules start hampering International free flow of capital and the international free flow of liquidity. So (inaudible) add that why at this point the outcome is quite uncertain for us to make any final statement. On our total assets, you know, we only do the adjustment in assets to reflect the US GAAP versus IFRS difference. So you have a better comparability when you compare ourselves against our peers. But as we said in our strategy, we clearly understand that leverage will become more important, hopefully reported, not regulated guideline in terms of assessing risk on capital, and we have said that we will continue as we have to reduce our leverage over time, and adjust our balance sheet to compensate. We will not do this at the price of our clients. So because of our clients we will also be careful with that, and second obviously we will consider obviously the profitability of our balance sheet in doing so. Jon Pearce – Nomura: Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from Stuart Graham from Autonomous Research.

Good morning. I have a few questions guys. Maybe just on the Taunus again, maybe a clarification, can you just explain in detail the significance of the impairment in German GAAP, what that frees you up to do? The second question was around the RWA litigation. I guess that at the investor day you got the feedback that people were worried about your reliance on internal models and a key part of the progress in Q4 has been more use of internal models. So I guess maybe you could just give us a feel of the management team, what comfort you have that you're not going to wake up one day and the goalposts have been moved on you in terms of internal model harmonization and suddenly you've got a capital gap. And then the final question for Anshu, clearly there's been a lot of change in the competitive environment since the investor day with UBS and Morgan Stanley, Barclays. And maybe you could give us your perspectives on how you use Deutsche's market franchise now versus how the competitors are shaping up? Thank you.

Good morning. I have a few questions guys. Maybe just on the Taunus again, maybe a clarification, can you just explain in detail the significance of the impairment in German GAAP, what that frees you up to do? The second question was around the RWA litigation. I guess that at the investor day you got the feedback that people were worried about your reliance on internal models and a key part of the progress in Q4 has been more use of internal models. So I guess maybe you could just give us a feel of the management team, what comfort you have that you're not going to wake up one day and the goalposts have been moved on you in terms of internal model harmonization and suddenly you've got a capital gap. And then the final question for Anshu, clearly there's been a lot of change in the competitive environment since the investor day with UBS and Morgan Stanley, Barclays. And maybe you could give us your perspectives on how you use Deutsche's market franchise now versus how the competitors are shaping up? Thank you.

Okay. I will take the first two and then Anshu will take the third one, Stuart on Taunus, I need to give you some more background on it. According to the German councils, I have to value my participation in the subsidiary channel. And this occurs under the German GAAP, and under German GAAP that is a very conservative GAAP, the impairment is based on a DCF valuation, you know, they are built on a five-year plan. And therefore obviously it has to reflect the implementation phase in 2015 of the capital measure required. So what we did, we looked at the business plan in the United States. We made an assessment after mitigation and after reducing our balance sheet in the United States on the capital that we will have to provide by 2015, and then the DCF model gave us evaluation, and then we compared that to our book value account in our German account and then we took the respective impairment. This will now obviously frees us up. It was a consideration because obviously the concern is we have as you know out of the German books, we used to measure the dividend, and the dividend blocking rules. In the dividend blocking rules we had to obviously consider while making a substantial impairment to our subsidiary in the US, but we managed within our German account to get that and still allow for a dividend. So that's the background of what happened in the German book. So from that perspective, it is something that is now behind us and you would be prepared to deal with it. From a German accounting perspective to deal with any further issues and so it is part of our plan. And now…

What's the carrying value, I can't understand your German GAAP please?

What's the carrying value, I can't understand your German GAAP please?

I can look up the number. I don't have it now. But I can give it to you, but it is obviously you know conservative German accounting, not very high remaining. So now on your questions on risk weighted assets and mitigation on our model, first of all the majority of the previous CD derisking did not come from model approvals in the second half of 2012. Keep that in mind. 60% comes from NCOU derisking and portfolio optimization, and only 24% from model changes. And the biggest one was VaR multiplier. Now we look very confident in the future on this subject, but we still have one of the higher VaR multipliers in the industry. You know, the Basel framework requires a 3% about on average VaR multiplier. We are still at 4%. Yes, so that provides us first of all big comfort that despite all the modeling going on and the concerns around that that we can. Second, I think we will see these threats coming in terms of our risk-weighted asset comparability, and I can only tell you at this point that we are very comfortable with the results. If they would prove that these accusations to Deutsche Bank's reliance on modeling might not be true, and that maybe some of our other competitors may be much more exposed to it than we are. Don’t the framework in itself does arrive at assumption. The more granular risk you manage, they are more exactly able to model the risk that if rightfully so an incentive to that then results in less risk-weighted asset charges. That is the background of it. Don't forget also that it takes a long time and continues proof between standardized and our individual models here to make sure that you know that our modeling risk corresponds. I do understand that the concern because of the lack of transparency that exists around this modeling but we are very confident with the information that we will be provided in terms of these comparisons over the next couple of months that we are doing with the regulators to provide the market with transparency that we will come out quite well.

Hello, Stuart. In terms of your question regarding comparative positioning of our investment banking franchise, I would actually say that there has been a clear validation of want we said to you in September. The main point we made at that time was that with Basel 3 implementation if you are significantly outside the top five, where five or six years ago you could still hope to beat your cost of equity, it will be very difficult to sustain a second tier investment banking franchise. And that's exactly what we're seeing. So we're seeing some very significant consolidation, particularly in fixed-income currencies and commodities, which we are confident will continue to accrue to the top handful of funds. Clearing against that they will give some level playing field questions, which will rise as we see the future of regulation payouts, but certainly the first dynamic, which we were counting on is in fact playing out much of the Fed input.

The next question is from Jernej Omahen from Goldman Sachs.

Good morning from my side as well. It is Jernej here from Goldman. I just wanted to ask you a few questions, and it's got to be boring because they are going to follow some of the topics you have already been questioned on. The first question I'd like to ask relates to the Fed proposal, and I have to say so and maybe it's me but I'm just confused because I don't understand whether Deutsche Bank believes this is a big deal or whether you think it's not a big deal because on the one hand you're telling us we won't have to raise any capital as a consequence of this. It's not going to have a meaningful impact on our operation and on the other hand you're telling us this is such a big deal that it is going to spike retaliation from European regulators. So, I would just like from your side an unambiguous statement, do you believe that the new Fed proposal will have a meaningful impact on your business in the US, and if the answer to that is, no, we don't have to transfer any, we don't have to raise any capital, we don't have to raise any liquidity, if you can then explain why you think it is going to spark a big global debate as a consequence, and how it impacts your business from that perspective. The second question I had is when you ran us through the options of response for Deutsche Bank in the US, you listed three if I understood you correctly. The first one was the IHC, intermediate holding company, but if I understand it correctly this would essentially force you to dismantle the structure that Deutsche put in place after the rules were initially changed by the…

Good morning from my side as well. It is Jernej here from Goldman. I just wanted to ask you a few questions, and it's got to be boring because they are going to follow some of the topics you have already been questioned on. The first question I'd like to ask relates to the Fed proposal, and I have to say so and maybe it's me but I'm just confused because I don't understand whether Deutsche Bank believes this is a big deal or whether you think it's not a big deal because on the one hand you're telling us we won't have to raise any capital as a consequence of this. It's not going to have a meaningful impact on our operation and on the other hand you're telling us this is such a big deal that it is going to spike retaliation from European regulators. So, I would just like from your side an unambiguous statement, do you believe that the new Fed proposal will have a meaningful impact on your business in the US, and if the answer to that is, no, we don't have to transfer any, we don't have to raise any capital, we don't have to raise any liquidity, if you can then explain why you think it is going to spark a big global debate as a consequence, and how it impacts your business from that perspective. The second question I had is when you ran us through the options of response for Deutsche Bank in the US, you listed three if I understood you correctly. The first one was the IHC, intermediate holding company, but if I understand it correctly this would essentially force you to dismantle the structure that Deutsche put in place after the rules were initially changed by the…

Okay, I was short on the capitalization question and try to reconcile for you the big deal and no big deal. And let me say the following, for us it is always different levels of answering the question. The first question you asked me is it technically difficult for Deutsche Bank now after we have taken this HCB impairment. So we are fine to technically provide capital to the United States. The answer is no, because we had so much inter-company debt in the United States at our subsidiaries that obviously with the debt to equity stuff we can provide for the capital. This is a technical piece of it. So – and the reason we prepared ourselves to do it, so in terms of what technically needs to happen is you correctly point out that that is not the point, the point is what repercussions would it have to free capital movement in the world, and what we expect other regulators to react to it, and how will a global financial system work under a restrictive and ring-fenced national capital guideline, what will we lose, Anshu will say something to that effect. In terms of the other technical impact like the DTA, there is a much reduced DTA that's because we have been profitable in the US and we have been using these loss carry forwards. So we have moved this significantly down. So it is not something that concerns us and as we expect our business plan and our strategy implementation in the US, our business is profitable. When we talk about reducing some of our activities in the United States, obviously we will not reduce highly profitable businesses, which of course then would have been an impact on our ability of using this loss carry forwards in…

Sure Stefan. And I think the question goes to the heart of an issue which is not just important for Deutsche Bank but indeed for the entire global financial system because if we were to extrapolate what we have seen in this proposal. I think in some way the clients counter to what we have been told was critical as part of the FASB work, which is the International Harmonization of Financial Standards, and indeed if the US were to move ahead unilaterally you have to assume it is not just about them but every major regulator then will move toward the new norm, if indeed this is in the norm of gathering capital and gathering liquidity. This is not just a question for European bank, the Deutsche Bank. You should then be asking questions of our US competitors in terms of how efficient their operation is going to be on a global basis because I can't imagine Asian regulators will happily stand back and not follow the same standards. So I think this is going to rapidly escalate into an industry issue, and indeed with very significant global GDP and growth consequences because you cannot at that point assume that global capitalization of banks as they stand today, which relies upon the efficient redeployment of balance sheet liquidity and capital as business cycles wax and wane across different countries. If you're saying more risk this proposal leads to the end of that. That is called systemic consequences for our entire industry. I think what Stefan's point to you is that you can rely upon Deutsche Bank to optimize our operations’ capital liquidity business model to this change but I would definitely use this opportunity and others to point out that this is going to have significant ramifications for the entire system.

So now to you other questions, the risk-weighted assets under Basel 2.5 is currently 28, and you can see it on page 45 of our presentation today, and the ratio under Basel 3 fully loaded is about 33%. But also take into account that we are reducing our highly weighted exposures, namely obviously the securitization pieces which do not use much balance sheet, but are highly risk weighted, often at 1250%. So you need to consider that. The second, in terms of reconciling for you why our leverage doesn't move while our risk weighted asset move, if you consider that for example when you look at our cash that has significantly increased that carries no risk weight of balance sheet with our high cash (inaudible) which right now do cost us in terms of leverage would be easy to just get rid of our cash and how you put leverage numbers. This is how we continue to believe that leverage is a wrong number to look at but if that gets regulated we have to get rid of our high liquidity with us. So in that sense this is the relationship you have to look at assets that don't carry high risk weighted assets to solve the dilemma between the two ratios. I think we have answered all your questions, if I am on track.

Maybe just the last one on the market multiplier is that suggestion ...

Maybe just the last one on the market multiplier is that suggestion ...

We can only estimate our current estimate for peers is 3.5% on average, but you know, the Basel framework includes the 3% guideline. So in order to – we expected that Basel 3 gets implemented that that will be then the standards to be applied 3%. Okay.

Thank you very much. This is all very helpful. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is all very helpful. Thank you.

The next question is from (inaudible).

Hi good morning, and thank you. I am not going to go on about this US thing, I have just a question on the market purchase demand, I mean there is a very sharp rise about 1.3 billion in demand. You said we should expect something similar going forward and what does something similar mean, do we talk about a similar ratio per quarter or per year and the second question and the second question is on compensation cost, can you give us an indication as to what kind of awarded compensation ratio you're aiming for in the investment bank, and a then for the rest of the bank. Thank you.

Very quickly, we have no compensation cost to target. I think that would be at this point not right. We're not giving out a target. We want to continue obviously to lower it, which obviously is also the intention of much of the regulation that is clear on the one hand but on the other hand we also have to stay within the market parameters. So I think to target a ratio here is difficult. So we have to set competitiveness versus obviously reduction. We put on an ongoing basis on the market repurchase plan, there's also some good news in this, obviously the improvement of the market in the United States. It has certainly lower losses around it. We do still have some – and we expected in the near future that the trends to continue. Obviously we expect to get some more but as we move, you know, and time moves by, and obviously these losses are lower than anticipated and mitigated. Obviously we expect also some good moves on that over time. But again this is something very difficult to predict because these are decisions from people outside of the bank circle, but what is important that so far I think our case-by-case solution of the issue is important.

Okay, thanks.

We will stop the Q&A right now. Please Mr. Muller continue with any other points you wish to raise.

Yes, thank you. I am afraid we have to stop it now because our management needs to jump over to the press conference that is starting soon. So any questions you have remaining please come to us, and we're more than happy to answer everything that you need and with that I would like to thank you for your interest in Deutsche Bank and have a good day. We will see you on the road. Bye.

Ladies and gentlemen the conference has now concluded and you may disconnect your telephone. Thank you for joining and have a pleasant day. Good bye.