Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for standing by. Welcome to the Second Quarter 2012 Conference Call of Deutsche Bank. [Operator Instructions] I would now like to turn the conference over to Joachim Müller, Head of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, sir. Joachim Müller: Yes, good afternoon, and good morning to all of those calling from the Americas. This is Joachim Müller from Investor Relations. And on behalf of Deutsche Bank, welcome to our second quarter conference call. Let me start by saying that our Co-CEOs, Jürgen Fitschen and Anshu Jain, have decided to join this call to give you a first-hand update on our ongoing 100-day strategic review and discuss some of the key things emerging from that process. To be clear, this is still work in progress. We will give you more detail of the results in September. Anshu and Jürgen will then hand over to our CFO, Stefan Krause, who will lead you through the Q2 results and take questions relating to those results, as usual. Please understand that if you have questions on the longer-term strategy, there will be an opportunity to put all of these in September, so we suggest focusing your questions today on the second quarter results. Please note the cautionary statements with regard to forward-looking statements at the end of the presentation. With that, let me hand over to our co-CEO, Jürgen Fitschen. Jürgen Fitschen: Second quarter results call. Anshu and I took charge 60 days ago. We are just over halfway through the 100-day strategy review, which we launched on June 1. The process is going extremely well. It has included broad involvement of employees and other stakeholders. At the 100-day mark, on schedule, we'll have significant progress to report to you on many fronts. So today, we are pleased to announce an investor day on the 11th of September in Frankfurt, to which you are cordially invited. As you also know, Anshu and I have a division of labor of the CEO task between us. It is agreed that the CEO dialogue for the analyst and investor community will be led by Anshu. Accordingly, I suggested that Anshu gives you an interim progress report on our strategy review. Let me now hand over to him. Anshu?

Thank you, Jürgen. Ladies and gentlemen, this is our first communication with you since we took charge in June. This is obviously a critical relationship for us, and we take our responsibility towards you extremely seriously. For me, personally, today marks the first step of a long-term partnership and dialogue with you. Jürgen talked about our 100-day strategy process, which is now just beyond the halfway stage. To be clear, our review is focused both on the need for a clear strategic direction and on immediate actions. We've made a lot of progress. Today, out of the many themes you expect us to grapple with, we want to update you on 3 themes, which are foremost in our minds, and I daresay in yours as well. And those are: culture, operational efficiency and capital. So let me start with the all-important theme of culture. We are aware of the need for a change of culture in the banking industry, especially in investment banking. That, to date, is intense and entirely justified. Let me be explicit. We have recognized that change is imperative. The time for vague promises of cultural change in our industry is long gone. We understand that not only you and our investors, but also our clients, regulators, governments and the public want to see change. We don't underestimate the complexity of the task nor the time it'll take. But Jürgen and I are totally determined to act quickly and decisively. In our strategy review so far, we are focused on 2 key levers: the first is compensation. The need for cultural change has many dimensions. The need to change the compensation model is the most important of all. We've already reduced compensation significantly over the past few years. Now we need to further address both the absolute…

Yes, thank you, Anshu. And also, good afternoon, or good morning from my side. I'll obviously have the task now to walk you through the second quarter results as usual, and I would like to begin on the third slide. It should come as no surprise to you that it was a difficult revenue environment in the second quarter. Whereas, as you'll remember, the first quarter benefited substantially from an improvement in confidence as a result of the LTRO, the European sovereign debt crisis again intensified in the second quarter. I guess this is no news to you. Given our strong franchise in Europe, we continue to be negatively impacted. Clients' risk aversion due to ongoing uncertainty led to lower client activity across most of our major businesses. Our corporate and institutional clients are delaying strategic actions, as well as essential hedging and market issuance. Our retail bank is generally facing lower interest income and lower brokerage-related revenues as clients move towards cash and capital protection-type products. In contrast, the persistently low rate -- interest rate environment is a headwind in our transaction bank as well, whilst, in addition to suppressed asset flows, margins in Asset Management are pressured by the ongoing mix shift towards cash programs. For the group, revenues declined just 6% from the second quarter 2011 despite a meaningful deterioration in client activity levels and investor confidence over the course of the year. The current environment continues to reside in significantly lower levels of client activity, both on investment banking, as well as certain parts of our retail business, and we expect this to continue into the second half of the year. We intend to continue to run low levels of risk in light of this environment and maintain tight reins on expenses, while remaining focused on…

[Operator Instructions] And the first question is from Derek De Vries of Bank of America.

I actually have a few questions, but I'll start with some simple ones. The EUR 3 billion cost target that takes us to a cost base of EUR 24.3 billion, when do we get there? You didn't quantify a time for that, so that's a pretty straightforward one. Also, the big risk-weighted asset runoff that takes place in Q1 2013, can you give us a little bit more detail on that? And then finally, on compensation, I think you're the only European investment bank that doesn't give us the awarded not yet expensed variable comp at the end of each year. But if you make some estimates based on what you do give us, I actually thought the awarded not yet expensed variable comp was down 2011 year-end on 2010. And I realize it's not straight-line accrued. But I'm wondering if you could just maybe give me how much has been awarded not expensed as of the second quarter 2012 versus second quarter 2011. Because I have to admit, I was caught out by the 12% increase in amortization of deferrals. I would have thought that number would've been broadly flat. So a few questions there for you.

So thank you for your, obviously, good and pressing questions. But on the first 2, I'm going to ask you to have a little patience with us for the next couple of weeks, 6 weeks. We're going to be out to detail more about the strategy, as Anshu said. We've made a decision not to provide more disclosure or details around what you heard on the call because that's going to be the context and the content of the announced investor day. So sorry, but I have to ask you to bear with us for a while. On the compensation issue, the awarded not yet expensed comp had been expensed in the second quarter 2012 versus the second quarter '11, where you would've thought that it would have been flat instead of an increased 12%. I'm going to defer that. Honestly, the view we take on accruals is that, obviously, they have significantly increased over the last couple of years. And the deferred portion, as you know, we were quite aggressive on deferral versus the industry, in our view, has increased. So I will have to do the math to compare to your numbers to see how you came up with it. But generally, as we had reported previously, obviously, the amount of deferred compensation has increased, and it's quite high for Deutsche Bank.

So what you're saying is the absolute off balance sheet liability, if you will, so the absolute level of awarded not yet expensed compensation today is higher than it was 12 months ago?

Yes, it has come up, yes. And I need to see your numbers and compare. I didn't do the math. But the difference, clearly, has gone up because when I look at the deferral ratios that we have applied to the different compensation levels, they were quite significantly higher in 2011.

But it's not a dwindling bonus, too, unfortunately, at least for the rest of us?

Yes. That's true, too. But let us do this...

Okay. We'll do it offline. Appreciate it.

We'll give you a call after this call to kind of try to reconcile numbers. Okay?

And the next question is from Jeremy Sigee of Barclays.

Well, actually, firstly a follow-on just on what you were just discussing. The percentage deferred or the bonus pool went up from 49% to 61%, I think, in 2011. Do we assume or do you assume a constant 61% deferral proportion in 2012? Is that how you're accruing? That's my first question. Secondly, obvious question, could you comment on the cost to achieve -- you're flagging a sizeable restructuring charge presumably in the second half. Could you comment on that? And thirdly, I understand you don't want to talk about your future actions, but could you talk about the EUR 29 billion additional management action that you've told us is now well underway? What sort of assets are you getting rid of as part of that?

Yes, Jeremy, thanks for the questions. First of all, it is – it was our market view, we took a big dip of deferral last year. I would not see this number to certainly increase our deferral, and I would rather see that we might be a little bit more conservative because our competitive information indicated that we were certainly the bank that was quite aggressive in terms of our deferral ratios, yes. So I think, we think that we'll be slightly down, that's what we're currently accruing to. And then we'll see how -- we usually make this decision based on competitive information that we get. And as you know, we do these decisions then towards year-end or at the turn of the year, at the beginning of the year. But currently, the trend would -- certainly, we were maybe a little bit aggressive on that last year. So on the kinds of assets, I'm going to -- sorry that I'm also going to defer to the strategic review in September. It's part of the package and detailed explanation we'll provide you on our path to get to the numbers that Anshu announced. Obviously, we're aware that you're going to -- that we are going to generate a lot of questions for all of you with our announcements. And therefore, I know that I have to ask you for some patience on that. But we would prefer to give you all the details in September, so you can have a comprehensive view. Because I'm sure your next question after where the EUR 29 billion comes from is going to be how we further move down the path, so please have some understanding. By the way, I got from the team, our planned deferral rates were around the 50% mark, so to give you a view that we currently are trending down. But I'll caveat this by saying this will obviously be year-end decisions based on competitive information we get.

And the restructuring charge, is that also part of the wait-and-see things?

Yes, this is part of the wait and see. But I think on the headcount reductions that, again, I'd like to clarify. As we had said, it's 1,500 in the Investment Bank and 400 in other areas of the bank. And I'm giving you that disclosure so you can kind of apply what your -- get the current ratios are going to be. We're going to give you more detail on the numbers in specifics in September.

The next question is from Jon Peace of Nomura.

Two quick questions, please. Firstly, just to clarify on the restructuring of the Asset Management business. So I understand now that the potential sale is completely off the table, so that business has been retained. And would you be able to size potentially any hangover from revenue or cost impacts in the second half of the year? And then, the second question is just on capital adequacy. And I take your point completely that you've always been in excess of minimum capital standards. But we've seen in Switzerland, for example, recently that as the Eurozone environment has deteriorated, the regulators have put pressure on the local banks to improve their loss absorbing capital. I just wondered what you thought -- whether you thought the German regulator might take a similar stance.

Yes. Okay, let me start with the Asset Management sale. We had started one process, which was the strategic review of the Asset Management business that we have concluded, yes. We have said that, obviously, as you know, we were not able to agree on acceptable terms for our shareholders with a potential buyer. And obviously, we then had also the reorganization of our Asset Management and Wealth Management business, and therefore, we stopped that process. Now obviously, all our Asset Management businesses become part of the strategic review, that – the review of the entire bank, and will be treated equally to any other either opportunity or challenge that we have to address within the context of the next couple of years' strategy. And then you will get an update on what is going to be the future of the Asset Management business in September as well. But I confirm that the attempt to sell the -- our mainly North American Asset Management businesses that, that project is concluded and closed. And we are kind of finalizing, that's why I alluded to the cost that the division had to carry around it. And obviously, we have concluded that process, yes. But I have to abstain to make comments about the future because, again, that we will answer then within September. So let's talk about the capital adequacy. Today, honestly, I'm feeling more comfortable in making some of the statements because we got some more clarification as we move along in terms of what expectations are and will be. And I can only reiterate that we feel very comfortable that with the phase in of Basel III, assuming the numbers that we've provided to you and assuming what we know requirements will be, we will be, at all times, comfortably above regulatory minimum. So if we are reacting to more capital needs, clearly, it's not driven by our view that we need it from a regulatory point of view, but it's needed just from a market viewpoint and from an explanation on how the phase-in targets will be achieved. Now obviously, in Switzerland, the story is quite different. The increased pressure on capital in Switzerland has something to do with the big impact of these banks on their economy and therefore the reaction, obviously, of the Swiss to protect their economy, to protect their taxpayer and to protect, obviously, also the Swiss wealth management business that is so core to these banks. And Wealth Management normally doesn't carry that high of capital charges, and it's logical that there was a strategic adjustment based on these thing. These 2 things do not apply to Germany or to a bank operating in Germany. So our answer to you is it's an apple-to-oranges comparison. It doesn't apply. I hope that answers your question. And for further capital ratio increases Anshu laid out in his speech, I, again, ask you to bear with us until September.

And the next question is from Christopher Wheeler of Mediobanca.

Right. So Slide 24, just a question on the EUR 119 billion of the net RWA additions. If I go back to October 2010 and I think last June when Anshu gave his presentations on the Investment Bank, you were talking about EUR 90 billion of mitigation. Within that EUR 119 billion, what have we got now for mitigation? In other words, can you give us a clue as to what the gross number is and then perhaps within the EUR 119 billion, how much of that gross mitigation you hope to have achieved by the end of this year?

I think it's a good question you ask. We started with EUR 90 billion, and I -- honestly, we have to get this question because we've seen this number increase. And that's -- if you remember, in my text, I alluded quite in detail to this change. We actually had a step in between, which was our EUR 105 billion number. I do remember asking if you were asking the step between the EUR 90 billion and the EUR 105 billion. But at the end, it is no – we have had no real material change in our total Basel III. As regulations clarify, we -- it's a timing difference. We were able to move some of the effects into this bucket while we reduced, obviously, the additional effect. So it's just technically moving components. The EUR 90 billion, those days, by the way,...

It was Basel 2.5, actually, yes.

Yes. And that included the Basel 2.5, which we've had, so the EUR 105 billion was the number after the Basel 2.5 update that we put in it. And obviously, the reduction amount depends on the ultimate rules. And obviously, the same action may give us a bigger or smaller benefit. What really matters to us is that we're very comfortable in hitting the net number we have to achieve, our ratio as shown here, and that's the way with it. There is significant management actions still coming. But you see us being still very comfortable with because we agreed additional EUR 29 billion of management actions that we are very confident to be able to deliver in the near future.

Okay, that's really helpful. And just a second very quick question. The job losses, I'm assuming this will happen fairly speedily. Therefore, we can be convinced that, that will have been done by the time we get fully to the end of the third quarter. Would that be fair?

Yes, end of third quarter. I would say it will really happen speedily. But sometimes, just the technical process will take some time. So I will not commit to the end of Q3, but it's certainly our intention to be done by year-end.

Next question is from Kian Abouhossein from JPMorgan. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Thanks for some of the restructuring details. I have 2 questions. The first one relates to old slides, to put in context what you're announcing now. At the CIB Workshop, Anshu indicated a pretax RoE of 20% to 25%. Clearly, there's an indication that the world has changed probably more than, at that time expected, which was in 2010. And I'm trying to get an understanding of how -- what does it mean in terms of a pretax RoE for CB&S going forward? Is something like a 20%, 25% still achievable in a new world, obviously, measures that you're taking? The second question is related to your legacy risk-weighted asset that Bill Brooksmith [ph] outlined, EUR 70 billion-plus is at Postbank. On top, I think you have another EUR 15 billion left, plus C&I. So again, roughly EUR 90 billion of risk-weighted assets that are to roll over, over time. And if I look at one of the slides, you outlined EUR 15 billion to EUR 20 billion rollover in 2013. Is that included in your 8% Basel III fully loaded Tier 1 number? And also, how much of the EUR 29 billion is related to those legacy risk-weighted assets?

Okay. So I'm going to make Anshu work here for the first one because he made the statement. And then, I'm going to take your risk-weighted asset question.

Sure. Kian, thanks for your question. And again, we will be giving you some fairly detailed guidance on how we expect the RoE to develop across the group overall and across each of the divisions in September. But I think it's fair to say that our prospects and our future view on profitability is different today than it was in 2010. There's no doubt that the European crisis has developed closer towards our more grim scenario than a better-case scenario over the course of the past 2 years. And that's the point I made about making the decision to recalibrate our headcount. So yes, we will guide you lower. Precise details to come in September.

Okay. And then to your second question, we -- honestly, we still have significant room to free up risk-weighted assets from legacy positions. And yet, a portion of that is in the second half of 2012 actions, as well as in the Q1 '13 actions, to get it to be that 8%. But it's not just that, and there is obviously more thereafter as we're going to disclose them later in September. But of course, for example, part of this EUR 29 billion package is legacy asset-related. And in terms of roll-off, of course, some of the roll-off assumptions might be changed because we end earlier. But at the end of the day, we also continue to have a significant roll-off as we have described previously at later dates. Kian Abouhossein - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: And can you give us a bit of an idea of roll-off versus sale versus kind of mitigations, i.e., model changes or other ways of reducing risk-weighted assets for better netting?

No, no. I don't have these numbers here with me, so I couldn't give you a relationship. But let's -- we will be -- we promise to be detailed in September so you understand the relationships between the different measures we are taking, and we finally shed light into our famous toolbox, okay?

Next question is from Philipp Zieschang from UBS.

Three questions, if I may. Just coming back to the EUR 3 billion of identified cost savings. You are writing in the release that these include changes to the business and revenue model. Should I assume the EUR 3 billion on net of potential revenue losses? Second question is, again, coming to your capital ratio guidance or simulation time frame from first quarter -- end of first quarter next year towards the end of next year, do you -- because you don't talk about full year 2013, would you expect the capital ratio also to benefit from lower deductions, i.e., the amortization of some of your DTAs? I think Crédit Suisse flagged around a EUR 3 billion reduction in deductions next year, which are obviously helpful to capital ratios. And the third point, coming back to Anshu's opening remarks, also on compensation that is at the heart of the current profitability protection. Should we read into that, that you will accelerate the amortization of deferred comp for a specific period in order to get ahead of the curve with respect to cost flexibility? Or will that be rather unlikely given your necessity to strengthen the capital ratios organically?

Yes, thanks for your questions. You guys are really relentlessly asking us about the strategic information we'd like to provide in September. I need to clarify the EUR 3 billion are net of revenue growth reinvestment. And obviously, as I told you, more detail will follow in September. And at the end, you asked a question about the specific benefit from lower deduction from DTAs. Yes, we will also provide you details. But amortization of deferrals will follow, obviously, plan rules and accounting rules, and that's what we put down. We estimate that our DTAs will continue to decline organically because, obviously, we have assumptions that we will be profitable, which we will talk to you about also in September, but obviously, not to the tune of EUR 3 billion like some of our competitors. As I said our capital ratio, obviously, will not benefit from similar technical effects, like these re-classes on DTAs that they have shown. And then -- sorry, and then I did answer your question on the deferred comp that obviously, here, we have to follow plan rules, and we have to follow accounting guidelines in terms of how we can apply. That's not a discretionary change every year rule because otherwise, I would get in trouble with our auditors.

So just to clarify. If you were to decide to take a larger chunk of the amortization of deferred comp, which hadn't been expensed yet, that wouldn't be at your discretion and you need it to follow through the deferral rate?

No, no, no. You can change a plan into the future. You can make assumptions into the future that you'll change your compensation structure. But then, you still have to follow the accounting rules of what constitutes a specific annual cost needs to be allocated to a specific service or what is future service. The accounting rules are pretty clear here. And therefore, obviously, your ability there is very restricted, yes. And especially for the old claims, don't forget there's commitments to employees out on the old claims that we obviously have to maintain and that where we have taken accounting decisions on how to accrue for them. So there's limited flexibility into the near term.

Next question is from Stuart Graham from Autonomous Research.

I had 2 questions, please. Firstly, is there any technical issue that stops you selling these 1,250 risk-weighted securitization positions? And then secondly, on the costs. You've disappointed for 2 quarters in a row. So I guess, using the first half cost base as your reference point, so the EUR 2.5 billion, x entitlement [ph] in Postbank cost cuts gives you quite a high starting point. So that EUR 2.5 billion is now less than 10% of your starting-point costs, whereas some of your peers were up to targeting 15% of costs. So I guess, my question is, is that a preliminary cost figure? Could that number still grow by the time we sit down in September? Joachim Müller: It's Joachim, Stuart. I'll take the first question -- first half of your question. Stefan will take the second half. No, there's absolutely nothing stopping us. It's completely management discretion. As Stefan made out earlier, what we are doing is navigating a very careful road where we are trying to estimate continually the price at which we can exit these positions, the cost of doing that, the opportunity cost of holding it versus the capital accretion. That's been a dialogue that we've been managing over the last 2 years, and we continue to do that. What's been interesting and you might have seen this with the main sell-down of assets in the U.S. is the appetite for this now is fairly robust. There's a number of funds which are set up to participate, so liquidity is actually of all the asset classes which have suffered, this is one place where liquidity is better today than it was a couple of years ago. Nothing is stopping us, but we are continually calculating to see whether it's in our best interest, net of all of those considerations.

One thing that worries me is that if you sold these things with a loss, would that invalidate some of your staff's bonus conditions in terms of the clawbacks that kick in, if the CB&S division makes a negative IBIT. Is that the consideration which could preclude you from doing this?

You're asking very specific questions, Stuart. Rest assured that what we do will be in shareholders' best interest, and any employees who are adding value to the shareholder will not be prejudiced as a concern, as a consequence of that. So we will -- those are all management controllable. That's an internal decision for us to take. If we think it makes sense for the bank, we'll do it, and employees that are helping us do it, will certainly not be prejudiced for it. But I can't get more specific than that.

Okay. And the second question was obviously the attachment point for our cost-cutting, which is a good question, and we debated it also quite a bit because at the end, the reason we use this one is to give you a guidance. Because at the end, the first half your cost base best represents as far as you know and you saw the increased legal and the increased, obviously, regulatory costs and the FX better represents the cost of the current platform of the bank overall, yes. So therefore, we decided if we provide you this as a basis and you're assuming some annualization of the first half-year and implying obviously, some of the seasonality effects we normally really have, that would give you a reasonable assumption of what the starting point of this number is. And it was just making a decision that this best describes the environment because the exchange rate we applied to because we had such a big difference to our -- for example, in the exchange rate versus previous year. And obviously, as we now have started to implement the Basel III requirements, we have IT and other regulatory costs reflected in our cost base, so you have a better indication of what the comparative would be. So but for the rest, I'll just ask you again to wait until September.

And the next question is from Kinner Lakhani from Citi.

So a few questions. Firstly, just on the EUR 2.4 billion of latent losses that you have on your reclassified portfolio. How are you viewing this, given the statements you've made today? Number 2, just on your one provision to litigation, which seems to be going up from EUR 2.1 billion to EUR 2.5 billion this quarter, at what point the number is large enough that you feel you need to take larger litigation charges? Number 3, just coming back on the point on comparability that I think you made earlier between banks and Basel ratios and so on. Just to get a better sense, if your risk-weighting methodology was not point in time but through the cycle, where would your risk-weighted assets be? Because this is one of the obvious differences between Deutsche and most of the rest of the universe that I'm trying to figure out. And finally, just a point of clarification on these cost measures, fully just my understanding. But should I think of them as being EUR 3 billion of a EUR 27 billion-type run rate, i.e. a go-to level of EUR 24 billion, given consensus is fully around EUR 25 billion for the next couple of years? Or should I be taking off EUR 3 billion off whatever Street is expecting over the next couple of years in thinking about this?

Okay, thank you for your questions. So let's walk through the one or the other one. Let me start with the EUR 2.4 billion on our IAS 39 re-classed assets. The way that I look at it, regretfully, we IFRS filers have been forced to report this number. For most of our competitors that file under U.S. GAAP, you would have never seen this sort of reclassified assets. We have to report both their accrual basis and their fair value basis, in terms of market basis. But we do not see this as a potential loss because, in our view, as we reclassified these assets and intend to – in the original intent of selling and trading them and now we put them on a parent to sell them based on the best time of exit for these, we just don't see these losses coming through the P&L. Obviously, this number is volatile because every time the market weakens, then liquidity disappears, then obviously the gap increases. But in most of the assets we have seen, if you look at the starting point, which was above EUR 5 billion, you have seen how the convergence of our book value with the fair value that we have assessed under the different methodology. At the end, some of these assets we may hold to maturity. And then they will move back to par, and therefore, technically, they will have no losses. Again, if at the inception of these assets we would have just taken this different decision that we didn't want to trade them, but we didn't want to hold them for maturity and sell them, this decision would not even have appeared. As you know, we had a couple of lumpy exposures in there, one of them was Actavis, that we…

And the next question is from Fiona Swaffield of RBC.

Firstly, on the cost base, well, the currency impacts. I wondered if you could give us something similar for revenues because I assume there would've been a big impact from revenues. So how much did the weak euro impact the revenues, Q2-Q2 or half-on-half, be interested in that number? The second is the euro periphery loan book. I haven't had time to read all the detail yet, but I wonder if you could talk us through what's happening on credit quality there because there doesn't seem to be much rise in the loan losses in the PBC international? So could you comment on Spain and the conditions in your book there? And then the third is the policy models to market risk versus standardized and the fundamental U.S. trading review. I don't know if you've got any further thoughts on how that could potentially impact your risk-weighted assets over time.

Okay, thank you, Fiona. Okay, let's go, I'll give you some details. So if you have your pencil in hand, I'll give you some of these. The revenues in CB&S were plus EUR 300 million, and that's now the exchange rate effect. And on the group, it was EUR 440 million, the impact, positive; negative on LLPs, of each EUR 10 million, yes. And the noninterest expenses in CB&S were negative EUR 265 million, and then the group, as we disclosed, EUR 360 million for this year. And for the first half, you want, Fiona, I'm willing provide to you the first half numbers, too, if you like.

Yes, please.

The revenues are EUR 570 million positive for CB&S, EUR 775 million for the group. The LLPs are the same, EUR 10 million negative, and then obviously noninterest expenses were EUR 440 million in CB&S; on the group, were EUR 600 million. So this is for that question. The second, on the credit quality. Our peripheral loan book has seen some really modest upticks in loan loss provisions. You don't see it because it's not that thick of a book, but just some modest uptick. But when we look at our loss absorption ratio, that takes into account our pricing for new business, that actually has developed favorably, and you see that over the last couple of years. We've done some -- quite some good work on improving the quality of our non-German European credit books, and that we have had some really favorable development in this overall. Also, we do see, obviously, a slight uptick in delinquencies in some of these markets. And then, your last question were the models. No, we are still assessing the latest Basel review of the trading book. This is obviously something we will monitor, but we feel that, at this stage, the ultimate outcome is so uncertain that we don't think that to give you any impact at this time is appropriate because we still have so much uncertainty around this and so much interpretation and so much discussions with our regulators. As you know, we are an advanced bank and have moved to a strong percentage of modeling throughout the rest of the half-year. And maybe as we do that, we might be able to give you a better number.

And I'll hand back to Mr. Müller. Please continue with any other points you wish to raise. Joachim Müller: Thank you, Gela. This concludes our second quarter conference call. I would like to thank all of you for your interest in Deutsche Bank. Let me emphasize that we understand you have many good questions around our initiatives and statements, and we really promise to you that we will, as usual, provide full transparency around those. It was very important to our Co-CEOs to provide you with an update on our strategic review today, so please bear with us for another 6 weeks until investor day. And with that, goodbye, and see you on the road.