Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the First Quarter 2013 Conference Call of Deutsche Bank. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Mr. Joachim Müller, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Joachim Müller: Yes, thank you. And good morning from Frankfurt. On behalf of Deutsche Bank, I would like to welcome you to our First Quarter Conference Call. We have with us today our co-CEO, Anshu Jain; and our CFO, Stefan Krause, who will lead you through the highlights of this quarter. We will have a question-and-answer session at the end of the remarks. And as you know, we've already provided you with all the documents yesterday, which you'll find on our website. Please be reminded of the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking statements at the end of the presentation. And with that, I would like to straight hand over to Anshu.

Thank you, Joachim, and good morning, everyone. Before Stefan goes through his detailed presentation, I would like to take you through our current capital position and capital strategy going forward and then put that in the context of our first quarter results. Capital strength is a core part of Strategy 2015. We began this journey with a Basel III pro forma Core Tier 1 capital ratio of below 6%, which was behind the leaders in our peer group. In September, we stated publicly that our aim is to raise that to 10% by first quarter 2015. We listened carefully to many stakeholders, regulators, investors, analysts and commentators as we developed our strategy. And subsequently, the message was clear. Resolving the capital issue has to be our top priority. For 2 consecutive quarters, we beat the targets we set ourselves. In 9 months, we raised our Basel III Tier 1 ratio from below 6% to 8.8% versus a raised target of 8.5%. This is equivalent to a capital raise of over EUR 10 billion. To do this organically represents the fastest capital buildup of any major peer during the period, and we achieved this through disciplined risk reduction. Since June, we've reduced risk-weighted assets by EUR 103 billion. We're aware of some suggestions that we achieved this risk reduction mainly through model adjustments. But let me say clearly, those suggestions are unfounded. We achieved the bulk of by true asset sales and hedging. For example, the Non-Core Operations Unit has contributed some EUR 50 billion of this total. In the first quarter alone, it disposed of a further EUR 9 billion of assets at or above carrying value. We're now reporting on a package of 3 measures that strengthened our capital structure. These are: firstly, continued strengthening of our capital base…

Yes, thank you, Anshu, and good morning to everybody. I would suggest that we turn to Page 2 of the presentation, which starts and gives you an illustration of our capital position. Anshu already talked you through the background of our equity raise, but let me provide some further color. The equity raise announced yesterday is embedded into -- like Anshu said already, into a comprehensive capital plan. But the view to CRD IV is important to optimize our entire capital structure until 2019 to reflect regulatory requirements. First, we have seen a period of very strong organic capital build from a Basel III common equity Tier 1 ratio of below 6% at the beginning of 2012 to a ratio now of 8.8% by the end of the first quarter of 2013. Second, after adding more than 280 basis points organically, we now add approximately 70 basis points to our ex-rights issue, which takes our pro forma fully loaded Basel III ratio from 8.8% to approximately 9.5%. With 9.5%, we are already now covering the Core Tier 1 minimum capital requirement, as well as the capital conservation buffer and the G-SIB requirement, which only becomes effective in 2019, which means that we meet this requirement already 6 years ahead of time. With our announced third measure of the package, we will also strengthen other elements of the capital structure. Our current capital structure, as per the first quarter, encompasses 3.9% hybrid Tier 1 and 1.7% Tier 2, aggregately in excess of future CRD IV requirements. To manage the transition, however, we anticipate issuing EUR 2 billion in the form of additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital instruments over the next 12 months, equating to an increase of our current total capital ratio of more than 50 basis points. Such…

[Operator Instructions] The first question is from Kian Abouhossein of JPMorgan Securities. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: The first question I have is regarding risk-weighted assets. You're now at EUR 380 billion Basel III. At the Investor Day, Stefan, you guided towards a number of EUR 434 billion due to some business growth. Should we dismiss this EUR 434 billion by 2015? Or is that still relevant going forward? Or should we think more the current level of risk-weighted assets at good level that we should assume as a run rate? And in connection to that, you have a Tier 1 Basel III target of 10%-plus by 2015. I'm wondering if -- is it not more realistic that we should really think about this more as of end of this year? And why don't you want to bring this 10%-plus target up, i.e. closer to the current time period? The last question I have is regarding FBO and if you could give us an update of, one, how you think about the debt-to-equity swap if you had a discussion with the Fed and with the BaFin about that, the amount that you think you would have to swap? And secondly, any discussion around funding, i.e. local versus still grouped or trapped funding, if you could give us an update where you stand in that respect, how you read the FBO proposals?

Thanks, Kian. I think a couple of good questions. From today's perspective, to answer your first question on the EUR 434 billion, I would say that we should think about a little bit lower now. Currently, if we look at the business opportunities, I think that we would see this a notch lower, certainly above the EUR 380 billion level but lower than the EUR 434 billion. That's our current thinking. And when we look at the appetite that the business has and what the business needs in order to fulfill their target, it's in between these numbers. Then you asked me on the 10%. Obviously, I don't think it takes a genius to calculate that we have really gotten very close to the 10%. Nevertheless, we want to preserve our optionality. And therefore, obviously, we have not give an update on this target. But you can assume that, obviously, we are inside of this 10%. It was important for us to be inside of this 10%. So we're fully taking the capital concern off the table. So for right now, let's stay with our guidance. But I would say we're pretty sure that we'll achieve this target by 2015 now. Then on FBO, I would say that, as described to you in previous calls, that we think that we can, even if the worst case scenario of these rules were to come in place that we had a plan put together to meet the requirements that especially, it's a leverage requirement and that's because for this leverage requirement, Tier 1, Tier 2 instrument can be used. We feel very comfortable that we would be able to -- doing the swap of debt-to-equity and especially then eventually debt-to-equity like instrument, achieve what we needed to do in the United States. The problem that remains those with be FBO rules are still unclear. We haven't learned any additional -- the proposal is out, and we have commented on the proposal. You've seen a lot of lobbying going around. And we are now awaiting until we can see the final rules. So therefore, I regretfully have no update for you. We haven't learned anything additional in the last couple of weeks about them. Let's wait until the final text is out. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Okay. If I can just -- one more very quick one, on Page 15, the asset sale and hedging numbers, the core and non-core. Can you just tell me how much of that EUR 43 billion plus EUR 18 billion is hedging versus asset sales?

Yes. Hold on, Kian. About 90% is asset sale. The majority by far is asset sales.

The next question is from Daniele Brupbacher of UBS.

Just a question on the OTC to CCP transition, and one of your U.S. competitors, JPMorgan, gave quite some specific guidance earlier this year. I think it was in February. Could you just share your thoughts with us regarding what the potential revenue impact could be for Deutsche just thoughts around repricing margins and capital consumption in that context? And a just second question on compensation in CB&S, I think the comp ratio was like in the first quarter last year at 38%. It then kind of approached a 40-ish level, which was kind of the level you had over the past few years. Is that how we should think about compensation ratios this year as well? Or is there any reason that it could be different, for example, the structure of compensation this day [ph], et cetera?

Okay. On -- in your question on OTC to CCP, it's difficult to predict at this stage. Now we're still awaiting the final set of regulations. And we expect the impact of each regulation will obviously be known once they're fully implemented. And revisions to meet it and particularly -- I think we are some years from implementation away. In terms of central clearing, we don't expect any meaningful impact. Introducing CCP clearing doesn't in itself change much products overall in the economics. And in any case, liquid IRS have been clear for many years. Moreover, there are also likely to be some incremental revenues which could accrue from demand of collateral management and clearing services. So as I said, we don't really expect any meaningful impact. On your compensation ratios, yes, we had a 38% in CB&S. We have told you that we intend to stay below 40%, yes. So in that sense, I think this is -- the first quarter is more in line. I told you that, obviously, some of it is a result of the headcount reductions we had, yes. And therefore, obviously, we'll see the impact in the first quarter of that. But we remain true in our guidance to stay around to below 40%.

The next question is from Mr. Jeremy Sigee of Barclays Capital.

Can I ask -- I've got a micro question and then a more big picture question, please. So the micro question is just very specifically, of the EUR 221 million group CtA and the EUR 132 million group litigation that you identified, how much of that is in non-core and how much in core? I just wondered if you could give us the split. That's the micro question? The big picture question and it's linking back to the earlier question, if you're likely to get to your 10% targets actually this year, is the implication that your capital ratios drift higher than that sort of, say, towards maybe something like 12% perhaps in view of the [indiscernible] or in view of your still above average, nominal average?

Okay, I can start with the first question. Obviously, our CtA is fully in core.

So all the EUR 221 million is in core?

Yes, core.

Okay. And the litigation, the EUR 132 million?

The litigation, about half-half.

Half and half, okay.

The second part of the question. And Jeremy, our answer to the second part of the question is quite clear. As we said earlier, we are targeting 10%. Don't forget we are issuing this Tier 1, Tier 2 debt in the amount of about EUR 2 billion. Based on all the simulations being done, that is more than adequate to take care of all the regulatory uncertainty even resolving towards more pessimistic scenarios. And hence, we've made it very clear. I'd said that in my opening comments, we would be committed to returning capital back to shareholders as we meet and exceed our deregulatory minimums that we've been set.

The next question is from Kinner Lakhani of Citi Investment Research.

So a few questions. Firstly, on the non-core, where you have EUR 91 billion RWAs, I just wanted to get a sense of how much decline you would expect on a 3-year view on a purely kind of passive basis by maturity and/or repayment? Secondly, just coming back to your point on capital above and beyond this 10%. What could we consider in the medium term as a normalized payout ratio -- normalized dividend payout ratio? And thirdly, just on the deferred comp charge, could you remind us what kind of deferred comp charge you would expect in 2013 and 2014 versus what was charged off in 2012? And also looking at Slide 9, if I annualize Q1 to adjust that your cost savings or your cost base, your run rate is about EUR 1 billion lower than the first half of last year. Is that how you're thinking about it?

Kinner, let me start on your question on the EUR 90 billion risk-weighted assets like the roll off in the normal course of business in the next 3 years. It's about EUR 30 billion to EUR 40 billion risk-weighted assets. So that would be my guess on our -- looking at the asset composition on a do-nothing scenario in terms of accelerating that. Then your next question was related to the capital above 10% and the payout ratio. We have not given out the payout ratio at this point in time. At the -- in our world, it's the Supervisory Board that makes the proposal to the AGM, obviously, supported by a proposal that the Management Board make. We have always said that once we're above -- on or above the 10% that our ability to return capital to shareholders, to increase dividends is given. And a very strong part of our move in our decision to move quicker on capital this time was, obviously, the fact that we saw how our competitors in the market have moved on and is returning capital to shareholders is increasing dividends. And we had the feeling that we had to put and give the optionality to Deutsche Bank as well. And that's why we accelerated our effort to get close to this 10% threshold. So it just gives us optionality and enables us to do it. But again, we have not disclosed the payout ratio. But I can, I think, speak for the Management Board. We remain very committed to increasing dividend in the near future as well. On your question on the deferred comp, it's -- I don't remember what the question was. The charge -- whether a charge is expected in 2013, 2014 versus 2012. Well, I believe that it's going…

The next question is from Huw Van Steenis of Morgan Stanley.

Two quick questions. You have to adapt your business structure in Germany for high-frequency trading guards and hedge funds. Could you give us any update on how far advanced you're on that? And any particular impact on capital or funding? And number two, as you look to the U.S. rules, do you -- just in the way you've anticipated some of the rules by the capital increase, do -- should we expect that you will issue more of your debt in dollars? Or do you think you will just wait until the rules are actually printed?

I can take the second one, yes. Well, then let me take -- quickly, Anshu is going to take the second one.

So on issuance in the U.S., we've done everything which we needed to do. We now intend to wait and see what finally comes up. At this point, we would have no further plans for any issuance beyond what's been announced already.

And to your first question, obviously, there is no real clarity yet on the German structure proposals. They are out and -- the proposals. We have to wait final resolutions. Our current view is that the impacts are very manageable.

The next question is from Mr. Christopher Wheeler of Mediobanca.

Just a couple of quickies. First of all, on the cost-to-achieve, Stefan. Obviously, you were telling us to look for that EUR 1.7 billion this year, I think EUR 1.5 billion next year and EUR 200 million the year after. And obviously, you've only pushed through EUR 221 million. Can you give us some kind of clues to whether your estimates for the year, the restructuring charges will change? That's the first question. The second one, I'm going to go into the virtual key area once again of the FBO. I'm just trying to get my head around the fact that when you sort of put the story -- or the information into the market about what's going on, allowing both capital and funding, you were obviously being very conservative particularly around funding. And that was really on the back of concerns about losing the large exposure. The fact that the large exposure, that issue on your intercompany debt would fall away and you might have an issue there, and that the actual cost of local funding would go up. I'm getting the impression that this concern about losing the cancellation of the large exposure will -- has sort of gone away a little bit and also that I'm hearing that your view is that if you do have to raise more funding locally, it could be down pretty close to where the group rate is. Are these sort of fair comments? Or are you still, as you said earlier, going through the fine print?

Okay. First of all, on the way to think about the CtA, I had referred to it in my presentation. And we planned CtA based on specific measure, yes, so data, IT projects or efficiency project, where the investment money is spent. Obviously, a large part of these projects are in -- definitely in the planning phase, yes. So they're not really -- they need to get support. They need to get IT. They are obviously ordering all this now, yes. That's how you should think about it. And obviously, with the way we will receive the deal, it's obviously in a tendency later. That's why you always have to think about a ramp-up of the CtA throughout the year. Any of the severance costs would be the same. We obviously have to first implement the efficiency measures and then if redundancies -- we are able to realize redundancies, then I would see severance payments will come at a later stage. So that's how you have to think about the core program. It's a ramp up. We will stay at the EUR 1.7 billion. Current plan shows that the full year number that we plan is still EUR 1.7 billion. And of course, by the end of the year, give or take, on timing of project, we still believe we will be very close to that. The EUR 221 million was now the beginning. And therefore, just think about the second quarter some more and then ramping up through the third and fourth quarter. At the same time, of course, then our achieved synergies are also ramping up. That's, as we also have a lower level of synergy realization in the first quarter. And that's how it, more or less, stays in line. Don't forget we have a net 100…

The next question is from Ms. Fiona Swaffield of RBC.

I have questions in a couple of areas. The first was on your fixed income result. Would you consider that you're losing market share? And do you think that maybe the derisking has impacted this business? Or is there -- is it something to do with the base effect in your view? The second area is on the cost savings. I just wanted to understand the moving parts to the final end game because you did give, in Q3, quite a useful kind of bar chart. So I mean, on the organic growth, I mean, could that be quite significant as an offset because there's a small work -- it says reinvestment at the bottom. But I'm trying to understand how significant could that be as an offset to the EUR 4.5 billion when we're looking at the end absolute cost base. And just the last question is on the leverage ratio but using Basel III exposure. Are we anywhere nearer being able to have a number on what that could do to your U.S. GAAP assets if you -- once you move to Basel III? I don't know if you'd look to that because you, obviously, had numbers from some others.

Fiona, let me take the first question. As we said already, there's now a considerable amount of discussions over the last few months about our Sales & Trading business and investing banking platform. And as we said very clearly to you this morning, we're very gratified with where we stand. So both in terms of outright performance of that Sales & Trading in the first quarter, Deutsche Bank had a Top 3 position, which is where we've been on average for the last many quarters. And also on a year-over-year basis, our percentage decline in revenues is very much in line with the Top 5. So both from that measure but more importantly from what we hear from clients and what we see in league tables and so on and so forth, fixed income currencies and commodities have always been and continue to be an area where Deutsche Bank has a strong and dominant franchise.

Okay, let me start with your organic growth and planned cost reduction, good questions always. And what we're struggling with, to be honest and I think you're struggling too is, yes, we have set out a EUR 4.5 billion cost target. And now everybody is asking us on which base it is. And it's kind of, therefore, projecting a fixed cost target for 2015. And to be honest, this is a little bit unrealistic because I would say that at the end of the day, if there is growth opportunities, of course, we are not going to constrain on cost -- yes, our abilities to grow. And that's why we clearly state that the more important ratio to keep in mind that we're really clearly committing it and that at the end is a core ratio to 65% cost-to-income ratio. And now depending on where revenues turn out to be in 2015, this may either yield higher savings or requirement on the EUR 4.5 billion or lower net impact because we might have some additional growth opportunities that, of course, we, at that point in time, will then use. Nevertheless, the way the program itself is set up is really to achieve EUR 4.5 billion run rate. So we are going to plan to take out EUR 4.5 billion cost. And it's that, obviously, are really efficiency gains. This means really lowering the base run rate. And then from that point of view, at the efficiency level that we achieved with the EUR 4.5 billion, continue to run the bank. But of course, if there is -- and that's what the reinvestment means. If there is growth opportunity, we will not -- we will allow, obviously, a large portion of our run cost especially on the operational side, it's volume-dependent…

But just to follow-up, what I was trying also to get at was we know the U.S. GAAP balance sheet of just over EUR 1.2 trillion. But would it be -- is there any indication of how much higher it would be under the new Basel III total exposure?

Yes, about -- I think our own calculation is about half higher, in between the -- that's the best estimate I can give you, in between IFRS and the U.S. GAAP, yes. So it is significantly higher calculated on net basis. But we're not concerned about it because don't forget, everybody -- if we finally get to harmonized view on leverage, that would be a good thing to have across the industry because then, at least the base on which we calculate and the definition on which we calculate, this leverage will be the same.

The next question is from Mr. Stuart Graham of Autonomous.

I have a couple of detailed questions and a bigger question. The detailed questions, Page 87 of the interim report, your Basel III calculation, the other negative has gone from EUR 3.9 billion to EUR 3.2 billion. I wonder what drove that in the first quarter. And then the second detailed question is you've reboarded EUR 10 billion of trading assets. You restated your assets up by EUR 10 billion. I wonder if you could explain what that is, please. Then the bigger question is, on the rationale for the capital raise, I mean, I hear you that essentially, it's listening to shareholders, because, I guess, some people would say it's a bit illogical raising capital at this GAAP tangible book and then holding up the prospects of quicker dividends. But if I understand it correctly, you're saying that's what shareholders want and you've responded to that. Could you also just comment on the attitude of regulators? I mean, were they kind of passive in this process? Or was there encouragement from your -- these regulators to raise equity as well?

Stuart, we'll answer your questions in reverse order. Let me take your big picture question first, and we'll give Stefan time to prepare his answers to your important detailed questions. Let me begin by reminding you that this management team started with a Core Tier 1 ratio of 5.9%, made you a promise that we would have very ambitious goals by the end of 2012, met and exceeded that. We then restated those goals up to 8.5% in the first quarter of this year and met and exceeded that. So we countered this capital raise from a position of great strength. There should be no doubt in any one's mind that we could have reached there organically. So why then the shift, why then this capital raise at a discount, as you've said, to tangible book? There's a number of factors that have played a role in our thinking. Let's start with basic math. We were asked to raise capital by virtually a unanimous opinion across investors and analysts in June, again September, again December. So the reality is that, that feedback isn't brand new. The difference, of course, is that if you begin with a starting point of sub-6% or even sub-8%, which is where we were at the end of last year, we didn't see how a meaningful capital raise even could get us to the point where the capital issue would simply be taken off the table. This is the first time that we can actually do that. Now you're right in saying there's a premium to doing it. There's a cost to doing it. The cost is the 10% dilution. The premium is to tell our 100,000-person organization that we're back to being focused, to getting on the front, focusing on our clients to focus on…

Just to be clear, I mean, this was your decision. There was no gun to the head from a regulator. This was management's decision.

Our decision, no gun to our head, no visibility on any new unknown that we didn't know over the last multiple months.

And Stuart, I sit right next to Anshu. I know there is no guns anywhere. If anything, it was really a discussion we had in the Management Board, yes, after this great results we had and after the great result on capital. And honestly, if we would have just presented to you the good results, everybody would have asked, "So what's next?" And we just anticipate the, what's next, yes. Just take off the capital topic off the table. You guys have always requested it. We always said priority is organic first. And that's, at the end, what we did. And now I want some time to get you your detailed answers. Thank you, Anshu. And so the first one is, obviously, on the reduction that was on the negative from EUR 3.9 billion to EUR 3.2 billion, well, what's the driver. As you know that, it's lower DTA and also lower deduction given this higher capital. There is this 10 to 15 rule in place, yes, that these are maximum allowable limits. And then obviously, because of the higher capital, obviously, the deduction went down, yes. And this is what this number reflects. So it's this 10-15 rule on DTAs mainly. And then the second thing on the balance sheet is we have an adoption of IFRS 10 that changes the scope of consolidation, yes. And therefore, we had increased -- we had to include some nonmaterial entities that previously were not part of our consolidation group, yes, and rules. And that increased the trading assets by EUR 10 billion mainly. There was an impact.

I guess my question are these are not kind of JVs where you sold assets, the hedge funds, provided in the financing and then...

No. Now the scope of the consolidation has been increased, yes. So it's just immaterial -- formally immaterial entities that -- Deutsche Bank has 8,400 legal entities, yes. And obviously, in a large consolidation, you always have entities that are immaterial and you don't therefore consolidate. And now according -- there is no -- and rule is out with IFRS 10 and we consolidate with entities. It's as simple as that.

Let me now hand back to Mr. Joachim Müller for his closing remarks. Joachim Müller: Yes, thank you. So this concludes our first quarter analyst call. Thanks for your interest and, more importantly, for your support. Any questions that you have, please come directly to IR, happy to answer them. And otherwise, we'll see you on the road. Have a good day.

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