Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. I'm Mier, your conference call operator. Welcome and thank you for joining the first quarter 2014 analyst conference call of Deutsche Bank. (Operator Instructions). I would now like to turn your conference over to John Andrews, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Good morning and thank you, operator. Good morning everybody. Thank you for joining us this morning to discuss our first quarter results. As usual, joining us today is our Co-CEO, Anshu Jain, and our CFO, Stefan Krause. First, Anshu will provide you with the highlights of the quarterly performance then Stefan will take you through the deck in greater detail. As always, all the presentation materials are on the website, and we remind you to pay attention to the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking statements at the end of the presentation. Without further ado, let me turn it over to Anshu.

Thank you, John. Good morning everyone. I'm going to address some key topics before handing over to Stefan -- capital, costs and business performance. We've always said capital was paramount amongst our strategic priorities, so let's begin there. We said on last quarter's earning call that our capital ratios will be subject to volatility in 2014, and indeed that's what we are seeing. In the first quarter we saw greater clarity on the interpretation of regulatory implementation. We grew our capital base by €1.4 billion in the quarter, but this was more than offset by a rise in risk-weighted assets which were substantially due to the implementation of regulatory requirements. As a result, on a fully-loaded basis, our core Tier 1 ratio declined to 9.5% from 9.7% in the fourth quarter. The regulatory bar is getting higher. We anticipate further headwinds from the final EBA’s rules on prudential valuation published in March and other developments. Despite the higher bar, we're confident we can meet these challenges, and we remain committed to our capital targets. As we've consistently said, we have a range of measures which will help us do that. We would not rule out any option that's in the best interest of Deutsche Bank. Our preference is to reach our targets by organic means, but we reiterate our commitment to take all necessary measures to maintain our strong capital levels. We're also acting decisively on other fronts to further bolster our capital and leverage. Last night we announced our inaugural issuance of new additional Tier 1 capital, a landmark issue, with a minimum size of €1.5 billion, the first part of a program of €5 billion of ATI issuance by the end of 2015 which we announced last year. We reduced CRD4 exposure further in the quarter, which helped…

Yes. Thank you, Anshu. And guten morgen out of Frankfurt. I will begin on page two because Anshu covered most of the numbers on page one. So if you go to page two of the deck. It provides you with the bridge between underlying reporting results for the first quarter. In two sets we adjust for the non-core segments to arrive at what we look upon as the core bank, and costs in connection with legacy issues and with restructuring of our platform. This slide illustrates that the underlying results of the bank in the first quarter 2014, €2.6 billion were actually not far behind the results of the very good first quarter of 2013. Let me now start by addressing some key current themes before I cover then the businesses, so I talk to capital, leverage and cost. So if you turn to page four, as you can see here, our common equity Tier 1 ratio declined 20 basis points in the quarter to 9.5%. That's 40 basis points increase from higher common equity tier 1 capital, principally due to net income, but offset by a 60 basis point reduction largely related to growth of risk-weighted assets of €23 billion. Of the €23 billion, RWA increased, about €10 billion was related to model updates for credit risk and CVA. These updates came about from discussions with our home supervisor that granted formal approvals for CRD4 related model components in the first quarter, which are now officially included for the first time in our official regulatory filings as Basel 3 went live in Europe on January 1. We expect to mitigate some of these impacts in the coming quarters as we remain in constructive discussions with our supervisor on the implementation of this model. The remaining €13 billion RWA increase…

(Operator Instructions). And the first question is from Kinner Lakhani of Citi. Please go ahead. Nicholas Herman – Citi: This is actually Nicholas Herman at Citi. JPMorgan guided the move from current exposure method to the SACCR would benefit their leverage ratio by about 30 bps. Would you be able to provide some guidance on that as well please? Thank you.

It was difficult to hear your question. Do you mind repeating it? Nicholas Herman – Citi: Sure. I just said that JPMorgan guided that, moving from the current exposure method for derivative exposure and the leverage ratio would benefit the ratio by 30 bps, by moving to SACCR. Would you be able to provide some guidance on as to how that would benefit your ratio as well please?

Yes. We're assessing this, but we have no guidance at this point of time. The issue is that the cross-effect from variation margin are to be analyzed, but we are expecting a benefit, I have no number for you here yet.

And the next question is from Jon Peace of Nomura. Please go ahead. Jon Peace – Nomura: My question was on your toolbox of capital measures from slide six, to get to the 10% target. It looks like you put them there in order of preference. I just wanted to confirm that and wondered if you could expand on the portfolio measures item. And finally, if you were to resort to authorized capital, how would you think about sizing what would be appropriate? Thank you.

So I'm really surprised about the question. No, kidding aside, we really expected those, your question around it. So to say it clear, and I think I state, as we always have stated, no change in our statements, is that organic first. I think that's what we owe our shareholders. I think that the path the Deutsche Bank has taken certainly has been the more difficult path. But it is delivering a more sound, a more safe, and a better bank, because we are, at high speed, are de-risking and cleaning up our balance sheet, taking down our risks and creating a better bank and forming capital. And as you saw from my slides in the NCOU as an example, as well as in many of our businesses, it has been quite successful. And we will continue every effort along. So that's priority number one. But obviously looking at the size of regulatory headwinds that we are, from our perspective, unexpected, that we did not include in our 2012 plans, we don't rule out any other option. And I do not want to add to any further speculation around the capital discussion at this point. Jon Peace – Nomura: Just on the portfolio measures, I mean what particularly were you referring to in that context? Thanks.

We were referring to sales. For example, there are several parts of business; there were businesses that we've sold, smaller transactions that we continued where we continued to clean up our overall portfolio. These are mainly activities that don't fit into the new strategy anymore. I can give you some names, CME [ph], Deutsche Card Services. These are transactions that we announced.

The next question is from Kian Abouhossein of JPMorgan. Please go ahead. Kian Abouhossein – JPMorgan: The first is, unfortunately, coming back to capital I'm afraid. Just on CVA, you mentioned that there will be a mitigation effect. Can you just indicate, is that correct? It was about 10 billion of CVA charge? And in your outlook, you do talk about further CVA risk-weighted asset impact. I'm just wondering how we should think about risk-weighted assets for the year-end considering you also had quite a bit of growth in your risk-weighted assets for your business. The second question is related to costs. And the way I read your statement, it sounds like you're on track on gross costs but there is a lot of additional costs coming in. So I'm wondering what it means in terms of net cost and hence how should we think about your cost income target guidance that you have given at the Investor Day? Are they still valid, would you say, or do you think there is some risk to those targets?

Okay Ken, thank you for your questions so let me go through. We explained obviously in the analyst that call that for CVA further details on the modeling approach might evolve in our regulatory discussion. As a result we might see some volatility around CVA, RWA until year-end, and that's when I referred to volatility in the capital ratio as something we have to do with. So we will provide the details then as we go. In terms of the RWA gains, we had obviously the increase in the first quarter was partially regulatory driven and partially driven by obviously business growth that we allowed. This business growth is -- generally business growth that occurs in the first quarter is seasonality driven. The normalization RWA we don't expect to go away because obviously we need to continue to allow our business to achieve the budgeted target. On the regulatory side we see some change. We had some surprises in the first quarter in terms of regulatory additional RWA and this is an ongoing discussion with our regulators. We got -- in the area of the CVA multiplier we got an increase in this quarter and obviously the Basel related number is lower and we will see this as obviously something that, assuming we fulfill requirements that our regulators have imposed on us, we might be able to manage away, even maybe within the year of 2014 if we comply with the requirements here. So therefore my message stays that volatility is what you -- in the capital ratio is what you need to expect. But as I also reiterated, that does not change our view that we can achieve the 10% by the end of the first quarter of 2015. It's just the way they are will be a little…

Yes we don't anticipate a substantial reduction for the year. It's not a substantial reduction. Obviously we will continue to de-risk so I think that if I look at the amount of RWAs that we can take down, there's still potential and we will do so. But on the other hand, we obviously have this regulatory headwind so there might be always the same story of compensating RWA increases due to regulatory requirements.

The next question comes from the line of Huw van Steenis of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Huw van Steenis – Morgan Stanley: Two questions. First, during the first quarter you got a lot more regulatory priority on the U.S. holding company requirements and I was just wondering if you could update us on your latest thinking on the amount of capital funding and the structure for the U.S. entity, because I was surprised we didn't have an update on that this morning. And then secondly, just more philosophically as you think about the fixed income business, when I include the commodities change which you made, your marketing of fixed income actually didn't improve in the first quarter versus everyone who's reported so far, but your capital intensity of supporting that business obviously increased materially and it obviously strikes me that it's increasing yet further from the comments you've made on the call today. Is there anything you can actually do to make this business more capital efficient or is it just inevitable it's going to become more and more capital intensive to keep -- you're going to have to run to stand still in terms of the capital intensity of that business? Thanks.

Okay. So let me start with the FBO plans. The reason we are currently working on this, as you know the FBO rules came out. Second, I did update you that there were some other reliefs versus our plan, mainly due to the longer timeframe of implementation. Bottom line, we got 12 months more implementation time which for us means in terms of the capital there one further year of retained earnings versus our current plan. So therefore obviously we were quite relieved in terms of understanding the new framework that certainly gives us some more time. Now the plan, as you know in the framework we have made a new capital plan by the beginning of next year to that effect and we have to deliver obviously a capital plan and discuss it internally and with our regulators before that. And that's work that we are doing. But I will tell you again, nothing has changed from our view and the numbers have not substantially changed from our view, other than it's more of a relief in those terms. But I think we didn't give you an update but I'm sure by maybe the end of next quarter when we're done with our plan and have it approved et cetera, et cetera we can talk more about it. But in principle, assume that the numbers that we've given you in the past are still valid. On fixed income, you're right, the business -- the move of commodities was mainly driven by the fact that we have decided to exit and unwind this business; therefore we moved it to the non-core unit. You are right that therefore the number, the duration if we do an asset comparison, was a little bit higher than -- still pretty good against our competitors. And still I think we felt we had a good quarter in fixed income. The capital intensity of this business will change of course because the type of risk that we are carrying in this business is much lower; it's much more slow, it's a much less structured business and therefore obviously we are continuing to optimize the model to run. We have higher throughput, higher turn, lower risk in this business, so you can assume that the capital intensity of this business will continue to decrease. Some of this business will also structurally be changed in terms of being run over exchanges so the risk profile will change which also should benefit the capital intensity of this business.

The next question is from the line of Jernej Omahen of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Stefan, the first question from my side is on fixed income revenues and you claim that Deutsche Bank's FIC was down 10% year on year, which compared to the U.S. peers and also Credit Suisse reporting, would be a great achievement, given that your peers were down 15% to 20%. But can you just explain to me -- so if you didn't do the reclassification of commodities into the non-core unit i.e. if you left the FIC as it was last quarter, what would the year-on-year progression have been?

Yes it was 16% and I think I put it in my presentation and we discussed it before. Still, if I can say Jernej, still better than the street. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Yes, still better than the street, so still respectable, yes. But the second question I have is on the composition of this because you say that you've done worse in FX, in credit structuring and in EM, and I guess we should probably add commodities to that, and you've done better in credit flow which I can understand, but that you've also done better in rates, which I think has been a particular point of pressure for all of your peers. Can you just elaborate a bit on that point, that you had a good quarter in European rates? What was driving that?

Well I can verify that this is the composition. That we did better, like you said, in FX credit -- did worse in FX credit and obviously then, if I have to add the commodities so U.S. right? Yes we did have a better flow in rates. I will owe you the answer on what's driving this. Let me come back to you in a few -- Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: I'd really appreciate that because I think it's exactly the opposite and the magnitude of difference is quite meaningful to all of your peers. And the third question I have --

We did have some sales of assets also; we had have some activity which did have some -- Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: You realized gains?

Yes. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: You realized gains in your rates business?

Yes. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: By selling inventory.

Yes. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: All right. Okay. Thank you. And the last question I have, and I promised to John I was going to be brief today, so the last question I have is on page four. When you say model updates, what do you mean by that? Is this the reversal of model optimizations of last year or is this something new? So when you say the risk weighted assets were up due to model updates, what does that mean, page four?

Yes this means the following. As you know, when we implement models they have to be approved and reviewed by our regulators, right? Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Right.

And now we have the new Basel III framework which changes many of the approaches to modeling, which changes many of the rules we have to apply, and which also changes some of the math. And therefore Europe went live with Basel III models like CVA formally this quarter and we needed to get regulatory approval. So don't forget we are making these assumptions all within this famous forecast for our capital ratios. So we had to assume what the approvals looked like for this capital without having any specific technical guidance from regulators et cetera and had to wait for the final formal approvals which told us what to apply. I gave you the example; we had a CVA multiplier that by the rules of Basel III is fixed at a certain percentage, 3% for example, but the regulator, local regulator can adjust it upwards if so required. And for example in one of these cases we get an upward revision of the CVA multiplier because obviously we will have to fulfill other requirements to get there. This is what we're now working through and as we said, we can believe we can reverse some of this after addressing the correctly issued -- issues addressed by the regulators. So think about it first time of application of Basel III model and think about that of course now we can start the process of optimization and the process of addressing some of the concerns that our regulators issued. Also with data flows and processing and easy things like this to fix that we can adjust now. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs Okay. And Stefan then finally on this slide, so can you just confirm that this is the way to think about this. So Deutsche has committed to a 10% core equity tier one at the end of the next quarter, so at the end of March. So your indication before was that you expect risk weighted assets not to change substantially, if I understood you correctly. So let's say that they stay flat, €373 billion. So that means you need at least €37 billion and let’s say €38 billion of capital which is a gap of €3 billion to where Deutsche Bank is today. And then you tell us that EBA change is going to hit you to the tune of €2 billion so that's a gap of €5 billion and then you're guiding for substantially higher litigation charges and costs to achieve for the rest of the year so I'm assuming capital formation or capital build as you call it would slow. So how does this gap fill?

First of all I don't know if we understood correctly, it's 2015, right, end of first quarter 2015. So we have a year -- Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Yes so in four quarters.

Four quarters to go, okay. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Yes.

And I can tell you our view is that based on -- don't forget what -- and our risk weighted asset count, I said mostly for 2014 but obviously we have -- our anticipation is how do we go into 2015 and portfolio measures we can take -- make demands from our perspective. Plus of course the story is a strong retained earnings story and the story is also further improvements that we can get there. And again we have not excluded any measures in case of these assumptions that we have made on the organic build are not -- we're not able to implement them, or if we get even stronger regulatory headwinds to deal with. So I think overall it's a quite doable way, an organic way. If, assuming obviously which we don't know yet, for example we don't have substantial further regulatory headwinds, I tell you for example on the issue of AQR it's open. And don't forget in your math, what you forget is the capital deduct items. On the math you forgot the capital deduct items and the deduct items in the Basel III framework are the biggest driver of the numbers. Don't forget if I look at my balance sheet capital, it's €55 billion right now and in the framework it gets deducted down to about €37 billion. So the capital deduct items are a big area. This is DTAs, this is other things where you can -- that you have to include in your math. And then, Jernej, to finish your question, I got now the information so our strength in FIC comes from distressed products. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: From what?

Distressed product sales. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: But is that part of rate?

Credit, flow credit. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: No but my question was that one of the areas of strength quoted is rates which is the area of particular weakness.

But it was slightly, only slightly up, not significantly up, that’s how we struggling. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Well it says here core rates revenues higher, driven by strong performance.

Yes it's slightly higher. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Slightly higher. I think it is slightly higher. Jernej Omahen – Goldman Sachs: Okay. So slightly stronger performance. Thank you very much.

Okay. You're welcome.

The next question is from Stuart Graham of Autonomous. Please go ahead. Stuart Graham – Autonomous: I'm a bit confused on a few things, sorry. On the FIC again, so we're now saying rates -- there wasn't any gains in there, the gains are in the flow credit. Maybe you can tell us what those one-off gains were? And I guess I'm still trying to understand why rates were so good relative to others, because I think everybody had a great Q1 in Japan last year, which wasn't the case this year. So what was flow rates? So two questions on FIC, one, what was driving rates better than last year given the Japan negative delta, and two, how big were the one-off gains in flow credit? Then a question on your cost guidance. You're saying that underlying costs will be flat. So that's the €23.2 billion I guess that you've given us the underlying costs. And I'm guessing that assumes that the AGM passes the two for one so if it doesn't then there'll be another €300 million on that? That's the next question. And then the final question is on your phased-in core Tier I of 13.2%, that's the same as your phased-in Tier 1. So I don't quite understand how those numbers can be identical, particularly because I think almost every other bank in Europe deducts goodwill from the core equity tier one phased-in, which you clearly can't be doing and I wonder how the ECB is going to treat that. So I'm trying to understand how your equity -- core equity Tier 1 can be the same as the Tier 1 under the phased-in 13.2%. Thank you.

Stuart, let me take the fixed income question. Core rates and credit flow trading were both up modestly year over year, but obviously contributed to the fact that we were down less than peer average. So the fact that we are pointing it out as a good performance is the fact that it wasn't down as much as you would have expected. By the way, we didn't have such a strong first quarter last year either. So year over year both core rates and credit flow trading were up modestly single digit percentage. Can't give more details than that.

So on the cost guidance, we give the guidance flat. You're asking the question whether flat before or after one -- they are flat after the one to two approval. And I said that we would have to add another €300 million to size it if we don't get the one to two approval to clarify that, that's what I said in my presentation. Stuart Graham – Autonomous: And the flat is that €23.2 billion underlying cost you talk about?

Yes. Okay. Stuart Graham – Autonomous: And on the phased-in 13.2%?

The phased-in in Tier 1, the core Tier 1 is 13.2% and you can find the explanation of this in our interim report on page 47 where you see that goodwill intangibles and other deductions we can make from still eligible AT1 which is a hybrid. So we can deduct it from that component in the capital stack. So look at page 47 of the report; there you see the disclosure. Stuart Graham – Autonomous: Yes I saw that but almost every other European bank tells us that goodwill is still a deduction and not subject to phasing, whereas you seem to think it is subject to phasing and I wonder how -- if you're right then --

But Stuart, can I say this is what we understand the rules to provide. It's a deduction from AT1 instrument and that's our understanding of the rules, and our discussion -- and from our discussion with our regulators. Stuart Graham – Autonomous: So the regulator's fine with what you're doing there?

Yes. But that's our current understanding.

Our next question is from Fiona Swaffield of RBC. Please go ahead. Fiona Swaffield – RBC: I just had a question about the AT1 issuance. How should we look at the incremental cost of this issuance? Should we assume that other maturing non-eligible instruments with a similar cost come off or should we be factoring something in as a P&L drag over time? Thank you.

Well, as you know, we have old Tier 1 instruments that obviously will roll off over time. And as you know, their regulatory recognition is still there and it decreases over the next three years by about a third every year. Those ones obviously have much lower coupons because obviously this was a completely different instrument than the rest of the instrument is. So -- and therefore obviously there will be some costs but let's see how we can price our instruments to come to final conclusions. But obviously we would expect there will be some additional costs because the risk type of these instruments is obviously different. Fiona Swaffield – RBC: Just to follow up, can you check, you may have said it, but if you have I haven't caught it. Have you given any information on the increase on the cost of de-risking at all in the quarter?

No we haven't. But look at the split of the NCOU; it gives you a good view on how the de-risking exercise is coming. Fiona Swaffield – RBC: So I should look at the €68 million on slide 26?

Yes. But let me remind you one thing only, because the costs are higher but in terms of your models, I think your question asking, the AT1 is treated as dividends for accounting purposes, the coupon. Don't forget it's the capital instrument; it's not going to be reflected in interest costs. Just let me make sure that it's different, okay. Fiona Swaffield – RBC: You mean it's a shareholders' equity adjustment.

Yes.

Next question is from Dirk Becker of Kepler Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Dirk Becker – Kepler Capital Markets: Two quick questions please. The first would be on the German banking tax. There are reports out that the banking tax will have to treble in the next couple of years to get Germany's contribution to the resolution fund, correct and I believe your banking tax burden was €200 million in the last couple of years. So should we expect this to get to €600 million? And then the second question would be on your possibilities to increase your capital by selling performing assets, and I was thinking about your Chinese stake in the Hua Xia Bank which should be worth a couple of billions. Is this something that you would consider selling before raising capital?

Let me talk about the tax. It's an effect that is very difficult to anticipate because we don't know exactly how the tax is going to be calculated or know exactly the numbers. We do anticipate from today's perspective an increase but I remember when the German bank levy was introduced the numbers were also much higher and the numbers that we are now reported have been much lower. So I can say difficult to say but obviously -- if I look at the discussion today, obviously there will be some more expense from a European perspective than from a German levy only. And if I look at how they're sizing the fund and the numbers they want to get to, I would assume that there will be some more expense. But the final application rules and the breakdown for Germany are not available yet so it's difficult to predict; it's just let's say a macro view that I give you the answer on. And then on performing assets, as in -- in long they don't fit into our new strategic focus, of course we also will and have sold performing assets. By the way, this is also valid for some of the sales we have done, especially the ones we've done later; they were performing assets. If I think about the BHF sale and things like that, these are businesses that did contribute to the bottom line of Deutsche Bank but are not in scope for our new strategic orientation anymore. So this is not an opportunistic selling losses only approach, our de-risking initiative. Okay?

Next question is from Daniele Brupbacher of UBS. Please go ahead. Daniele Brupbacher – UBS: Can I just briefly go back to the underlying cost base and €23.2 billion and the guidance there obviously was that it probably will be around slightly this year. So struggle a bit to reconcile all the moving parts in here. You mentioned two to one, you mentioned the regulatory cost around AQR and other areas, but at the same time obviously cost benefits should be in that line as well and originally the cost benefit this year, incremental cost benefit, would have been around €1.4 billion if I recall correctly, probably a bit less or a bit more, let's see. But clearly a big number. So what is the missing part if two to one is €300 million additional cost and regulatory costs probably another few hundred million? So which other areas would increase? Just that question as a follow-up. And then on slide 6 you mention explicitly AQR. From your perspective, which are the areas where you pay most attention, where you see potential biggest risks coming in that whole process? And then just lastly, on slide 4 the €8.3 billion. I mean you do talk about normalization so we should read this not as a Q1 seasonality increase but really back to more normal levels throughout the year? And then also can it be a bit more specific in terms of where you -- in which product areas you saw this increase? Thanks.

I can totally understand that this cost -- movements within the cost base are difficult to reconcile altogether because there are so many factors impacting it. First of all yes, we have significant benefits from OpEx which are run-rate savings will be quite good. These run rate savings are largely compensated obviously by still investment we're doing in 2014 and the year that we have anticipated this balance to turn massively positive, by positive meaning in reduction, of course is 2015 when our investment into these platform projects, improvement and efficiency projects will start to taper off significantly. And then obviously the full extent of the savings will come. Now it was -- it is already positive in 2014 but then we had the following costs. First we had a whole bulk of additional regulatory costs that are eating into this positive balance which you know, I disclosed some of it, is investigations, it's the implementation of Basel III, the running of the AQR project, you can imagine how expensive that is, additional audits, additional reviews. This is just -- when I say it's expensive, it's only expensive from running. And that can easily be €0.5 billion in 2014, just to give you precisely what these total costs of regulatory spend are. And then of course the one to one itself is €300 million additionally but the two to one already carries an increase of your base compensation level, whilst we still have to carry the higher deferrals from previous years. That's a pure timing issue that sits in 2014. And that's why our guidance is that net of all these effects our reported cost base will more or less stay flat versus the previous year and that obviously now excludes the litigation component that obviously we've assumed to be outside of this number. Daniele Brupbacher – UBS: No I think I can follow these moving parts but what confuses me, unless we are talking about two different numbers, but the adjusted cost base, according to slide 57, of Q4 is the €23.2 billion which obviously excludes costs to achieve but it would include the cost benefit. So I do understand that the net benefits really kick in next year but actually the adjusted cost base is exactly a way of looking at the cost base including the benefits but excluding the cost to achieve. But we can probably follow up afterwards--

No I can explain it to you. What we exclude is the CTA, which is the cost to achieve, but not the CCB. CCB in our terminology is the Constant Change Budget. It's like the -- definitely because that's ongoing for us as well. And those costs are higher. Daniele Brupbacher – UBS: Okay. And in PBC, just as a follow-up there, because underlying costs went down only €100 million in 2013. I haven't found the number for Q1 but it's probably down a bit more. And the original cost-cutting target for PBC was, if I remember correctly, €1.5 billion?

Yes. Daniele Brupbacher – UBS: How much behind schedule are you there or is it really sort of hockey stick effect going into--

Yes. PBC again -- we can give you some more details after the call. But in principle take it PBC is completely on plan and Powerhouse timing was geared towards 2015 to achieve the net benefit. So same moving parts for PBC as well. Obviously on the CRD4 compensation much lower impact in PBC than obviously in CB&S, but other than that at the end it's similar dynamics. Daniele Brupbacher – UBS: Okay and just briefly on the AQR and the €8.3 billion [ph]?

Again AQR we don't have any specific area of concern on assets. I would describe the main concern that we have at this point. If you look at the guidance given now, you will know that they are not going to use IFRS valuation in terms of regulatory capital calculations, but want to see more prudent valuation than in IFRS. Whilst IFRS tries to get the fair value and to a more midpoint market estimate, we see more of what EBA is trying to cover also with PruVal, more prudential valuation. So what's going to happen basically is that of course our IFRS book will stay unchanged but for capital -- regulatory capital purpose calculations there might be valuation adjustments that we'll have to implement in our 2014 trends. And these valuation adjustments are very difficult to estimate from this point of view. It's very difficult for us to say how big are they going to be, what's the logic of that going to be. And that's one of the big unknowns that I've been talking about in terms of our capital plans for the year where we don't know how big this number could come out to be. It's just very difficult to say. The moment they left -- basically for regulatory purposes they leave IFRS straight valuation, we cannot predict anymore. We feel very comfortable with our IFRS approach and our IFRS valuation and therefore our IFRS based regulatory capital calculation but this is now obviously very difficult to estimate. So most of the adjustments, by the way, we also expect and obviously come from the stress test, but some obviously may be applying also to the reported ratios and, as you know from the guidance the ECB has given, there will be an adjustment to the initial capital that goes into the stress test which will be obviously then valuation driven.

Next question is from Jeremy Sigee of Barclays. Please go ahead. Jeremy Sigee – Barclays: It's just a couple of follow-ups on the comp discussion. Could you quantify the step-up in base comp under the two to one scenario? That's my first question. And secondly, I think you said, of the variable comp award this year and next year, that you would be deferring more. I just wondered if -- did I get that right and could you put a rough quantification on that? What were you deferring? What will you be deferring?

First we have the one to one adjustment which is the bigger one, which is about €650 million, would be if we don't get the two to one approval. And then about €300 million of that gets lowered if we get a two to one approval. That has to do with how much we have to increase the base compensation. Now our philosophy will be total comp will be maximum equal. So then obviously if we take out let's say €650 million or €300 million out of and transfer it from variable into fixed compensation, obviously fixed compensation now will be -- variable compensation will be reduced by the equal amount. The problem is, by variable compensation that is reduced will only be shown up in the financials over the next couple of years because most of that is deferred already. So we're not planning any significant changes to our deferral program, but the 2014 tranche of that is mostly deferred. So in that sense this is how the dynamics work. And now we still have, if you say in the one to one scenario, this €600 million higher variable compensation that's going to hit our 2014 numbers, the share of previous years that's coming in. So that's how you should think about it. Jeremy Sigee – Barclays: But for the current year variable compensation awards you think you'll be deferring a similar amount to previous years, what you defer forward?

Yes. And let's not forget, this is not -- this will affect a rather small, about 5% of the population of the bank, which tend to be obviously the higher comp area of the bank, which tend to be already in the five-year deferral program (indiscernible). So don't forget, this will affect -- the one to one or two to one only applies to really small -- not to 100,000 employees. In the one to one scenario, as you could see from our AGM information, about 4,700 employees and about 1,700 employees in the two to one scenario. So it's a small proportion. But obviously it's the higher bonus and therefore also automatically the higher deferral population of the bank.

Next question is from Michael Helsby of Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead. Michael Helsby – Bank of America Merrill Lynch: I just want to turn to slide 6 if I can where you're just talking about the capital measures to clearly offset the headwinds that you've got in the risks. I'm just curious; it looks like the order that you've listed the measures in is in your order of preference. So firstly is that correct i.e. dividend reduction is at the back end? And am I right in assuming when you say authorized capital you're talking about accelerated book build? And just linking onto that, is there a trigger point that you -- from a CET1 basis where you think the risk of that is higher? So you're flagging that your core Tier 1 potentially is going to go down towards 9%. If it goes below 9% should we see that as triggering an accelerated book build? Thank you.

Okay. First of all, please don't take the sequence of this chart literal, otherwise we would have put numbers in front of it. So I only wanted to highlight, and that continues to be our statement, organic first before we do any of the lines measures, other measures and that includes the whole bucket that we have on that list. And obviously these decisions then have to be made at the point in time and we'll have to look at those. And that includes if you look at the bonus reduction, dividend reduction and authorized capital I would all look them in one bucket of type of categories you do. This is the bucket of after organic I would say once again. There is no floor from our view because at the end of the day we are fully committed still to achieve the 10% by the first part of 2015. And as I told you, and told the market constantly, I would be much more concerned if I'm anywhere close to breaching current framework capital minimum ratios that I also highlighted. Deutsche Bank has never had a better capital versus current regulatory requirements than today. We've never been better capitalized; we have three times buffer against what minimum requirements are. So in terms of day-to-day running the bank, there is no concern. And let's not forget, we are all discussing this projected 2019 capital requirements and the speed in which any bank can get to these projected numbers that only will be valid from a regulatory standpoint in 2019. So let's put also the urgency of moving this from a legal and regulatory standpoint it's quite, quite different and quite much more relaxed than the markets always make it sound. So in that sense we are committing to the…

Let me take that. I'm not sure where that presumption -- I'm aware that there were some stories about us losing competitive market share. And I said at the beginning of my presentation today that we have chosen to step back in certain areas, which by the way are pretty low profitability, particularly post cost of equity. We've taken a very deliberate stance, in fact we said this at the end of the fourth quarter that we are no longer looking to be all things to all people, even in fixed income. We are very mindful of cost of equity, cost of balance sheet, cost of leverage. So you will see some cosmetic drop in market share. We were never expecting to see a huge diminution in revenues, and by the way we aren't claiming anything dramatic. The gains we've talked about in core rates and credit flow trading are very modest positive year over year. Yes when seen in the context of a competitive drop of 15% to 20% that is pretty good, but no nothing dramatic. We did have some dealing in distressed but yes, core rates, credit flow trading modestly up year over year. Our market share relatively unchanged. So I suppose we didn't deteriorate the way you were expecting but I wouldn't claim anything dramatically superior this quarter versus this time last year.

Next question is from the line of Wolfgang Packeisen of WUP Finanz. Wolfgang Packeisen – WUP Finanz: There seems to be very obvious confusion on the street about capital requirements for banks in general. If we listen to ECB's Mario Draghi, he's insisting that the EBA stress test will increase confidence in banks' capital and the lending capacity. What I see is just the opposite seems to be happening right now, since even you keep flagging increasing volatility in capital ratios as the year progresses. Here is my question. Don't you think that this somehow needs to be fixed after even Bank of America now needed to track back twice this year on their capital plans and analysts really start to moan about banks being really, really hard to figure out? Thank you.

Let me take that question. No, look, broadly I think what the ECB is doing is very positive in the long run for European banks. By the time we're done with AQR, by the time we're done with stress tests there's no question that the levels of prudence are being raised. There's no question that the standards are being tightened. But in the long run that will simply result in a higher level of confidence that banks will feel towards each other and more importantly the system will feel towards banks. The price we'll all wind up paying to an extent, and I think this is happening on both sides of the Atlantic in different ways, on our capital standards and liquidity standards that will be stricter than what we would have predicted a couple of years ago. But in general I think this is good for the system and a price which is well worth paying.

Next question is from Andrew Lim of Societe Generale. Please go ahead. Andrew Lim – Societe Generale: On the leverage ratio, what would you consider an adequate target longer term? I think in the past you've highlighted 3.5% as a target by the end of 2015. Is that still the case now? And then, even if you do target 3.5% by that time, I think by that time your peers will be more towards 4%. So you'll still be bottom of the peer group in that sense. So I'm just wondering what your thoughts are in that respect? And then staying on the leverage ratio, it doesn't seem to me that there's a cap on how much hybrids you can issue as part of the capital stack. I know your €5 billion commitment there, that's equivalent to 150 basis points on risk weighted assets for Tier 1 ratio purposes but for leverage ratio purposes is it possible for you to issue more hybrids and therefore reduce your need for equity? Thank you.

Well we don't see any competitive advantage in the leverage discussion. I think we don't -- therefore obviously we will comply. We have no aim to be a market leader in terms of leverage; it doesn't make any sense to us. As you know, we've been discussing this measure. It's not very sensitive so it doesn't really help us to really understand the risk nature of the business; it doesn't really help us to compare banks. And two banks, one bank with 3% leverage and the other with 4% leverage, the 4% leverage can be still much, much higher risk bank than the 3% bank and therefore we always put out that this may be somewhat a misleading discussion. And therefore we'll be compliant but we're trying to understand what the framework is going to be and what the minimum requirements are going to be. You also have to consider that in Europe we continue to be largely bank balance sheet funded. The companies of Europe use bank balance sheets to fund themselves, especially small and mid-sized companies in Europe. We therefore see that the need for balance sheet in Europe is much higher than in the U.S. That's why we don't think that the comparison holds true. Obviously we would also benefit if more mid-sized companies moved to capital markets; that would be also interesting for our business model and that would help us. But on the market side we still will need balance sheets. So therefore no aim to be at the top of that pack. Whilst on capital we have, we don't have on leverage. Andrew Lim – Societe Generale: And on the CoCos, whether that can form a bigger part of the leverage ratio stack?

Well there is in theory no cap so therefore obviously theoretically you could do more on that. But don't forget the costs associated with it and at the end this will be a financial decision, what makes sense in overall life. So with the €5 billion we believe that that's what we need right now. And that's I guess but to only to answer your question, there's no cap. And then let's not forget on the threshold, and the question is what is it going to finally be. The EBA is mandated to suggest a leverage threshold for Europe by the second half of 2016. So we still have some time to go there and then at that point we'll understand what the minimum requirements are.

Excuse me Mr. Andrews, there are no further questions at this time. Please continue with any other points you wish to raise.

Thank you Operator and thank you everybody for joining us today. Obviously the IR team at Deutsche is available for any follow-up questions and we wish you all a good day.

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