Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. I am hereby your Chorus Call operator. Welcome and thank you for joining the First Quarter 2017 Analyst Conference Call of Deutsche Bank. Throughout today's recorded presentation, all participants will be in a listen-only mode. The presentation will be followed by a question-and-answer session. I would now like to turn the conference over to John Andrews, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Operator, thank you very much. Good afternoon, and welcome to all of you from here in Frankfurt. Welcome again to our first quarter 2017 earnings call. We're joined today by Marcus Schenck, Chief Financial Officer, who will take you through the analyst presentation which has been available on our external website at www.db.com since this morning. As usual and is our practice, I would ask for the sake of efficiency and fairness, questioners please limit themselves to their two most-important questions so that we can give as many people a chance to participate in the Q&A session as possible. Let me also provide the normal health warning, asking you to pay particular attention to the cautionary statements regarding forward-looking comments that you will find at the end of the investor presentation. With that out of the way, let me hand it over to Marcus.

Thanks, John. Good afternoon, good morning, welcome from my side. Behind us, by the quarter of progress, we completed our capital raise, announced strategic steps to strengthen our German home base, and best positioned the bank for future growth. Although numbers might not all show this yet, we see momentum across the bank as we're overcoming the headwinds we faced in 2016. Let me begin with a few general remarks. The reported quarterly revenue decline was predominantly due to a negative swing of €0.7 billion year-over-year based on our own credit impacting both Derivative DVA in Global Markets and own credit on issued debt in C&A, primarily driven by a narrowing in DB credit spreads in the quarter whereas spreads widened in the first quarter of last year. However, with the resolution of the DOJ RMBS matter and the completed capital raise, we see our clients reengaging, as confidence has been restored. The early stages of that is evidenced in our Q1 results. We continue to resolve major litigation methods and progress is becoming more visible in our cost and FTE base. As said, we completed our capital raise in April 2017, resulting in a strong Core Tier 1 ratio and the credit quality of our loan book remains good with provisions declining. Today, we're still reporting our results as we have told you in the old divisional structure. From Q2 onwards, our reported segments will shift to the three core divisions, CIB, the Corporate & Investment Bank, Private & Commercial Bank, and Asset Management which we previously announced. Let us now look at the group financial highlights of the first quarter in detail. Revenues of €7.3 billion are down compared to prior year's first quarter by €700 million, but up compared to the fourth quarter of 2016. Noninterest expenses…

Marcus, thank you. Operator, we're ready for Q&A. Again, if I could remind everybody in the queue to limit themselves to two questions, thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen, at this time we will begin the question-and-answer session. The first question is from Fiona Swaffield of RBC. Please go ahead.

Hi. Could I ask on slide 12, on the interest rate sensitivity, it was a two-part question. Firstly, if I'm right, I think in the past we've discussed rising rates. You've given somewhat different figures over different periods. I think I remember €500 million then €1 billion and now obviously it's €1.4 billion to €1.7 billion, wondered if you could explain what's changed in your assumptions. And then the second part of the question is, what do you assume on deposits? On deposit beta or the kind of the way that deposits repriced in your 100 basis point scenario. Thank you.

So, on your first question, the difference is that we now include also the benefit we have on the capital of the bank, the €60-odd billion, which was not included, which I think I had it also highlighted in the context of the announcements when we announced our capital raise. That's basically the difference. We're now harmonizing this also with what we're being asked from our regulators and in terms of how they request interest rate sensitivity. The deposit beta is nothing that we contemplate to disclose. It's not a big swing factor for us, quite frankly, at this stage.

Is that because you're just modeling demand deposits or...? I mean, I'm just trying to understand why it wouldn't be a swing factor when it is for other banks.

Yeah. Largely, the answer to that is yes.

Okay. Thank you.

The next question is from the line of Jernej Omahen of Goldman Sachs. Please go ahead.

Good morning from my side as well. Good morning in the U.S., at least. So I have two questions, the first one is on the waiver from the German Bank Separation Act. And I think at the time of the capital increase, there was an indication that Deutsche Bank expects this waiver to be forthcoming in the near future. And I was just wondering whether that is still the case. And if so, what timing were you thinking in regards to that? And the second question is, I think this has been the first quarter in a long time where balance sheet grew. So I think net of derivatives, balance sheet is up, if I'm right, around €38 billion quarter-on-quarter. How much scope – so, first of all, how much of that balance sheet growth is down to some of the deposits returning to Deutsche and some of the prime balances returning to Deutsche. How much of it is due to increased activity on the asset side of the equation? And finally, how much scope do you think there is for further balance sheet growth. I think, very helpful, you have given an indication as to what the Core Tier 1 ratio should not go below in terms of Tier 1 leverage. How are you thinking about scope for further balance sheet growth? Thanks a lot.

Hey, Jernej. The first question on – basically, the question on integration of Postbank and where does the process stand applying for a waiver, our expectation is that this is something that where we should get more visibility during the – basically during the next quarter or this quarter. That would be my current expectation. Obviously, things can always change, don't nail me to that but all what I know, I would say, my very best guess is it's during this quarter. On your second question, I mean, the balance sheet has grown, I would say, largely for two reasons. First of all, we continue to pile up cash and liquidity to levels where, obviously, that creates cost and we need to think through how to best manage this going forward. And I think people should not make the assumption that an LCR of 148% is what we are exactly targeting medium-term. That's point one. And, point two, we continue to see a recovery in particular of our prime brokerage balances. We have, I would say, to-date, probably recovered about 50% of what we had lost in this difficult period, September, October of last year. And those are the, I would say, two key drivers on why leverage has gone up. Is there more room to grow? I mean, clearly, we are north of regulatory requirements. Now medium-term, I would, nonetheless, like to highlight that we stick to our target of a 4.5% leverage ratio that over the coming years we will hit. But obviously, during this year, there's still some flexibility and it's also a position that can more easily be managed. But right now, really our focus, also given the capital position of the bank, is to invest into growth.

Perfect. Thank you very much.

Next question is from the line of Magdalena Stoklosa of Morgan Stanley. Please go ahead. Magdalena L. Stoklosa - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Thank you very much. Good afternoon. My first question is about the cost, and I'm using the slide number 6. And really, could you help us think about the trajectory of the adjusted costs from here? We know you're bridge to €22 billion in 2018, but a couple of moving parts. So how should we think about the head count reduction from here? We have seen the delivery in the first quarter. Also, things like the Professional Services, they seem to be quite an easy place to take the costs out. And we have – and to a degree, we have seen it again in the first quarter. Anything you could tell us about the IT side of things? And of course, the level and the trajectory kind of over the next 18 months of your reduced spend and incoming efficiencies. And if any anything that would allow us to think in a more detail of how we move from here to that €22 billion target by the end of 2018 would be very helpful. And I've got one more question after that.

So on cost, look, I mean I'm not going to guide at a level of, so IT costs will be at X-hundred-million per year end. I think, as evidenced in the first quarter, you should expect to see cost go down. Yeah? So when you – relative to 2016, our clear ambition is to reduce the cost. We will land below the – so I'm always talking adjusted cost base, yeah, just for the avoidance of doubt because there are obviously other cost items. But the real cost of operations, we expect that to continue to go down. Where are we going to land? It will be – I'd like to stick to it, it will be down. I don't want to put out a specific number. The levers that we have is we do see head count coming down along the lines of the agreed restructuring program which we're in the process of implementing. So further branch closures, further head count reductions, in particular in Germany, which is following an implementation path. So that is not, hey, we have to figure out new measures, it's just executing on what has been achieved. On the IT costs side, whilst we do see the Run the Bank cost come down, I just have to give the health warning that there is still a substantial number that is being invested into further improvements or processes of our systems. This is the theme that John raised in October of 2015, and we always said this is a three- to five-year journey. So we continue to be a heavy investor into changes to our IT landscape. So against that backdrop, the overall IT cost is likely not going to come down substantially in 2017. And the other line items, we – such as, as you alluded to, Professional Service fees, as you can see in the first quarter, we definitely do our utmost to bring that down, that's always swinging a little bit also with big projects. The one item I would really like to highlight is that on the comp and benefit line, there's going to be two effects. On the one hand, we will benefit from lower head count. As you can see, that's now really, for the first time, kicking in. Magdalena L. Stoklosa - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Yes.

But at the same time, be mindful of the fact that we have now started to accrue towards, I would say, normal variable compensation levels. The bank last year and the people in the bank took a hit, it was the right decision, but we also made it very clear that this was a one-time effect and the bank will and has to go back to a normalized compensation or a normal compensation routine on the back of it producing profits in 2017. You had a second question? Magdalena L. Stoklosa - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Yes, yes, no, of course, I actually wanted to follow-up on exactly on the compensation side, which you've just explained. So, thank you very much for that. My second one is a little bit of a follow-up from the – of the question about growth. When you talk about the Risk Weighted Assets growth going forward, of course, there's a couple of divisions which are kind of the prime candidates for the utilization of that. My question is really about the Global Markets and where you're likely to see that growth going. Because of course we have seen very strong revenues coming through in debt recovery particularly from the fourth quarter on the Equity side as well. How do you see the balance of being able to generate revenues on the existing balance sheet versus the revenues you would like to generate on the increased commitment of Risk Weighted Assets?

So, look, I think we – I think I said that in the context of our full year announcements that we had, in particular, in the last quarter – so in Q4 of last year – we had lost about €10 billion of productive Risk Weighted Assets largely in the new CIB space. So Global Markets and old CIB put together. And we said our clear ambition is to basically regrow and regain the business attributed to – at least, economically attributed to those €10 billion. Now obviously this doesn't happen overnight, this is something that we contemplate to implement throughout the year. I would still stick to that number. If your question is, so tell me where exactly that's going to go? Is that rates? Is that credit solutions? Is it our loan business? Honestly, the answer to that is, these are all businesses that we like. It will go to where we see the biggest return. Yeah? So there I think we need to be agile and deploy the balance sheet in the most meaningful way. So it's not that we determine now, okay, X billion will go to rates, that we will be determining based on the business opportunities that present themselves, but the recovery of about these €10 billion, that's roughly what I think you should assume we're targeting for the year. Magdalena L. Stoklosa - Morgan Stanley & Co. International Plc: Great. Thank you very much.

Next question is from the line of Kian Abouhossein of JPMorgan. Please go ahead.

Yeah, thanks for taking my question. The first question is related to the discussion and the perspective in terms of fixed income guidance and equities which was mid-March and, clearly, the numbers are lower than what we saw. And I'm just trying to get an understanding of the trend through March and how the trend has developed in April. And in that context, you mentioned that the underperformance is related to inventory, that the Americas have more inventory. If you can just allude on that, how do you see that they have more inventory than you have? And the second question is on PWCC. If I strip out one-off items, Oppenheim and restructuring release, I get to an ROE on allocated capital of about 3%. I'm just wondering if you can talk a little bit about how you see the improvement in this division, considering you've done most of your branch closures already.

Okay. So on your first question – and I hope I'll sort of comprehensively tackle that one. So first, again, the fact – I mean fixed income on the Debt Sales & Trading side, we do see a year-over-year increase in revenues to the tune of 11%. Be mindful of the fact that last year in March, we had the €80 million one-off benefit from the bonds tender that we did. If you, in a way, took that out, then there's about a 14% increase. When you actually compare with – and I know this is maybe not perfectly accurate – but if you compare by the way with a Q1 – sorry – Q4 2016 numbers, it's up two-thirds so obviously, much more substantial. To us what is really relevant is debt, and we looked at this: how has actually our market share evolved in that time period? So when I look back into the first quarter of 2016, our market share on the Debt Sales & Trading side, our revenue market share has historically ranged, when we look at our 10 largest peers, yeah, has historically ranged somewhere between 11% and 15%. And in Q1 of 2016, which was not – which was a quarter where we had seen quite a number of people also suffer, we think our market share was probably more at the upper end of that 11% to 15% range. In the fourth quarter of 2016, we actually dropped out of that range; i.e., we fall below the bottom end. In fact, we think we were probably around 10%. This first quarter, we estimate that we're probably somewhere in the middle of the range of that 11% to 15% range. So we're not yet back to where we were in Q1 of 2016, which…

If you could, that would be very helpful. I don't want to take too much time, but I think it'd be of interest to most people?

Okay. So when we look at the combined segment, the combined segment has about €8.5 billion of cost. It has about €10 billion in revenues. It had €10 billion in 2016, it had €10 billion in 2015. This €8.5 billion, we had announced that there's an additional €900 million of benefits that we see from combining the two segments. And on top of that, there is additional cost savings that Postbank has on a standalone basis, which is about a couple-of-billion. And then there's roughly another €600 million, €700 million of cost savings planned and still to be executed until the end of 2018 in the PWCC segment. When you then do the math, you see that our – that the combined cost base is going to drop to something between €7 billion, €7.5 billion. Now, assuming that the revenues stay constant – so I'm not making the assumption that, although I'd be tempted to do that over the next four years, we are going to see a change in interest rates, but let's just assume we'll be able to maintain the €7 billion. That then – and then take into consideration that there's going to be a few-hundred-million of loan-loss provisions that gives you IBIT numbers for the segment which, then you can do the math, will show you that we can – we would land somewhere north of 10% from a return point of view. Does that help?

That's very helpful actually. If I may, just very briefly, progression in April, considering that the run rate seems to have declined a lot on a year-on-year basis, can you just say something – sorry, I'm now conferring to Global Markets.

Oh, yes, I didn't comment on April. Yeah. So, look, first message is April, generally speaking, is directionally always a bit of a weaker month when Easter falls into that month. Because it just has fewer business days and some people go on vacation. We have seen April be a bit weaker than what April was last year, but April last year, I think, was still benefiting a little bit from the announcement that the ECB had made in terms of QE. And we see this a little bit this week, we think that people have been a bit cautious going into the French election. We have seen some recovery then during the course of this week. I mean, the election's still not decided, but I think it was an outcome where there was some relief felt in the market, let me put it this way. So bottom line, April so far has been a bit weaker, but we continue to see the same theme, namely a number of clients telling us that they're reopening lines and reengaging on business.

Super-helpful, Marcus. Thanks.

Next question is from the line of Stuart Graham from Autonomous. Please go ahead.

Oh, hello. Thank you for taking my question. I had two brief questions. The first is back on Fiona's question on deposit betas, you said it's not a big swing factor. So do I assume you don't expect deposit costs to rise as rates go up? In other words, you're assuming deposit beta of zero? Maybe I misunderstood. The second question is you talked last quarter about €600 million in lost revenues in the Global Markets over 2016 because of clients. Right? How much of that is returned in Q1, do you think? Thank you.

So, I mean, the second question, quite frankly, Stuart, is really a bit of an art. Honestly speaking, I think we have largely not yet really seen, in our revenues reflected, materially return of clients' activity. I mean, we see it more in some prime brokerage balances, we see it in increased invested assets in Wealth. We see it in net new money in Asset Management. We see it in a number of deals the corporate finance guys are working on. We see it in a number of deals our structured credit guys are working on. That's where we really see the return in business. A lot of that has not yet really translated into revenues. There are some businesses that react faster. So, of course, we have seen some improvement in revenues in the prime brokerage business, I think actually relative to the fourth quarter of 2016, we're up €100 million in the quarter. But I really would like to bring home the point that the recovery in business is not yet fully reflected from a revenue point of view in the results for the first quarter. Your second question was again, what's the deposit beta? Was that your question?

Yes. I mean, you're talking about interest rates going up 100 basis points, what do you assume your deposit costs go up by?

So be mindful of the fact, I mean, we largely do the math here on the back of our sight deposits, yeah, where we're not paying. I mean, what you have is, there's a bit of a step-change here in the analysis. Given we're coming out of negative interest rate territory, the rise in interest rates, the first part will immediately go to us. So that's a bit of an additional boost effect we have in the math here. If you fast forward, say, three years from now, all else being equal and interest rates were higher, and we would show you the same analysis, the numbers should mathematically be a little bit smaller because we would no longer benefit from this first effect, where today, we would technically, say, have to charge a deposit, 20, 30 basis points, which we're not doing. Yeah? So that drives this analysis here quite a bit.

I guess, the point that when you go from minus 40 to zero, you don't have to pay anything. But once you go above zero, I would imagine there's quite a lot of your depositors who have gone for sight because they're not getting anything on the time deposits and once they start getting something on the time deposits, they'll go from sight into time, so suddenly you have to start paying. I just wonder if you take account of that in your calculations?

Yeah. So – okay, thanks for clarifying that. Yes, that is considered in the calculation. But also here, be mindful of the fact, given we're coming out of negative territory, it's probably, at least in our view, when you move into slight positive territory, that's not yet being passed on to clients.

Got it. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Next question is from the line of Al Alevizakos of HSBC. Please go ahead.

Hi. Thank you very much for taking my question. So my first question is regarding the outlook that you gave on the CET1 capital. You said that basically you didn't expect it to remain above 13%. I just want to clarify because your pro forma is actually above 14%, there's a €5 billion gap between those two figures. So I'm wondering whether you've got something in mind like extreme RWA inflation in the short-term. Or whether there is some kind of unknown in terms of litigation that you may be expecting as I can see also that the contingent liabilities have not really moved down in the quarter. And then my second question is basically regarding the IT costs that we already kind of covered. I understand you say that the IT costs are actually going to be remaining elevated because you invest a lot. But I would like to understand, like, on your figure on slide 6, how much of that would you say is actually invested for improvement? And how much would you say is just maintenance for the existing legacy systems? And the question as well is like why don't you – why are you not able to capitalize more of the invested IT costs? Thank you.

Okay. So, look, we're not targeting 13%. Yeah? What I'm telling you is we'll be north of 13%. How much we'll be north of 13% will, quite frankly, to some extent, also depend on how much of this excess, relative to our own target, the 13% capital can we meaningfully deploy throughout the year. We would expect – I was already alluding to this €10 billion lost productive Risk Weighted Assets from the fourth quarter of last year. We would expect to see an increase in productive Risk Weighted Assets during the year by deploying some of this excess capital that we have. So don't really – when we guide you towards we're targeting 13%, our outlook is we're going to be north of 13%, that doesn't mean we'll be at 13%. Yeah? So that should not be misunderstood. On the IT costs, quite frankly, I'm not the biggest fan of capitalizing IT costs because you're just mortgaging the future. I actually do see in our numbers come through in the outer-years higher software-amortization charges. I mean, ultimately, we have to consistently apply accounting here, which is what we're doing. So the bank has, several years ago, determined how – what can be capitalized and what can't. We haven't changed anything there. But the problem with really capitalizing IT costs is it makes the current situation look nice and you just mortgage the future. Personally, I'm not a big fan of that and I think the policy we're applying is a good policy. We are really still spending substantial amounts of money for changing the bank. I mean from a cash point of view, last year we had something like €2.5 billion. So some of that got capitalized, but still the P&L hit was north of €2 billion, just in terms of the Change the Bank budget that the bank has. This is nothing where, again fast-forward three, four years, we think our levels where we should be at. But as long as we are in the process of changing the bank and improving, in particular, the back-office infrastructure of this bank, we expect to have that burden. But obviously in the outer-years – and I know at this stage, no one is focused on that – but we absolutely, at some stage, will bring down that Change the Bank volume.

Capital question. You've also disclosed €5 billion of operational risk because of model changes. Does this include all the recent fines that you had to pay in the quarters? Or would you expect a jump in the next three quarters?

Yeah. So, no, it does not reflect the fines in the last quarter. In fact, these are model changes which we have seen coming for several quarters. So that was not a surprise to us. Also, please be mindful of the fact that, yes, we did resolve a number of further items this quarter, but I'd like really to point you towards our litigation line which is showing that we didn't record any negative entry there, which tells you that the items that we resolved, we were properly provisioned for that. And we do record the op risk charge when we book the provision. So the op risk consequences of the fines that you have seen year-to-date have already been reflected in the past.

Okay. Thank you. That's very helpful. Thank you very much.

Next question is from the line of Andy Stimpson of Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Please go ahead.

Hi, guys. Thank you very much. Just on the interest sensitivity slide again. As Fiona was saying, it's gone up from €1 billion up to €1.4 billion. But I noticed that the net interest income this quarter actually fell by €0.5 billion quarter-on-quarter, so I'm just wondering what the near-term outlook is on net interest income assuming no rate changes. I see the footnote on slide 12 shows the net interest income sensitivity is versus unchanged rates. So I'm just wanting to know if there's no rate changes for another year or two in Europe, then where the net interest income is going to? Clearly, that's the number we need to add the €1.4 billion to rather than just using the 2016 level? And then, on the second point, on the IT – the 2015 Investor Day, you gave some really helpful metrics on things like how much of the IT infrastructure is on old systems. How much in system reconciliation is there as well. And I think it'd be really helpful if you could give us an update on those metrics and even if you don't have those to hand now, maybe in the future. Just because from the outside, it's quite difficult for us to see how much progress is being made in that underlying number, because it's a big mixture and it's just hard to judge if there's progress or if you've already made the progress and then when those savings turn up. Thanks.

Yeah. Okay. So, page 12, indeed does not take into account, in a way, the impact from, you move forward a year and had interest rates not changed and indeed as you rightfully point out, our NII would have come down. To give you sort of some indication for the stable businesses, currently, if nothing changes to interest rates and you go forward a year, that have a burden of about a couple-of-hundred-million for the bank as a whole.

Okay.

So I think that needs to be highlighted. Then also please let me highlight one item so that nothing really gets confused because you mentioned the €1 billion, which is the number that we, that both John and I, have pointed people towards in the context of the road show that both of us did after the announcement of the capital raise.

Sure.

Here, we were alluding to the impact that we would see from what the implied rate movements that we are seeing in the markets would have for us. And we've always said, we're seeing for two, three years out, a market expectation of an increase to the tune around 70 to 80 basis points. Here on chart 12, we're showing the impact of 100 basis point move. This is how you can square the €1 billion and €1.4 billion. And I think that was probably your question on NII, if I'm not mistaken. And then on the IT systems, forgive me, but I don't have these numbers here at my fingertips. I'm looking to John and he took notes and he will come back to you. But I also take that, if there's an interest in, amongst you guys, in getting an update on where do we stand on those metrics, we will provide those then when we show half-year results.

Sure. That'd be helpful, I think. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay.

Next question is from the line of Andrew Coombs of Citi. Please go ahead.

Good morning. A couple questions. One on capital again and then one on CIB. On capital, just a confirmation. Your presentation and your report do seem to suggest slightly different things. Now, I don't want to beat the downtick but on slide 23 you talk about above 13% at year-end but on page 19 of your report you talk about approximately 13% at the year-end. So should we thinking approximately 13% or by north of 13% do you mean quite a bit north of 13%, i.e., more similar to where you are today? And perhaps, also, within that capital flow during the course of the year, could you just provide a bit more color on how much of the €2 billion capital benefit from divestments in the IPO you've budgeted on coming through this year versus next year? And similarly, the restructuring charge that you've guided to I think you said 70% over the course of 2017 and 2018. How does that split out? So that'd be the first question on capital. Second question on CIB, you had an uptick in your primary revenues in line with peers. When I look at Trade & Cash Management, Loan Products, it's another quarter where you've seen relatively weaker revenues. You attribute that to exiting specific client and countries. Just wondering, is that process now done or are there more exits to come from here? Thank you.

So, okay. First question, Core Tier 1 ratio, it's above 13%. And as I said, how much above will depend on how much capital we'll manage to redeploy. And we'll find out during the rest of the year. On the benefits from the disposals, the disposals we said on Asset Management we're going to execute on that during the next 24 months. And we said the other disposals we will execute during the next 18 months. Inevitably, that will lead to the vast majority of those capital benefits kicking in next year and not in 2017. Now we started a number of processes on disposals, and I'm actually optimistic that some of those we can get to closure in 2017. I would still say the lion's share of this additional €2 billion benefit I would expect actually for next year. By the way, that's one further reason why – how much we're going to land above 13%, I can't tell you because we'll also see how we're doing on those disposals. On GTB, the process is not fully completed. But I would say, to the extent, it has an impact on our revenue position, this is – I would say, we're largely done. But really be mindful, we've exited basically Latin America with the exception of our Brazilian footprint. We have, in our corresponding banking business, off-boarded hundreds of clients that are categorized as high-risk clients. Other banks have been, quite frankly, through the same process earlier. That comes with a reduction in revenues but it also substantially has lowered the risk position of the bank. And we are in GTB now actually going back into a mode of growing our activities. We have one of the leading franchises in our – in Trade Finance. We see good opportunities to grow back in this business, and we have a fantastic Cash Management platform which, in some markets, when I look into some of the APAC markets, is still really underutilized. As an example, in Japan, we have sort of a high two-digit-million contribution there. I mean this is a market where we do see quite a lot of business opportunities for this business. So I'm optimistic medium-term for this business. And the impact from the parameter reduction, I would say, we're largely through, although not everything has yet fully been executed. But those that have a more material impact, I would say, there, we're done.

That's great. Thank you.

So we have no further questions. I'll hand back to John Andrews for closing remarks.

Great, operator. Thank you, and thank you, everyone, for dialing in today. Obviously, for any follow up, you're free to contact the IR team. Otherwise, we wish you the rest of a good day.

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.