Risk Assessment and Reporting

Risk Metrics

We use a broad range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies for assessing and managing risks. As a matter of policy, we continually assess the appropriateness and the reliability of our quantitative tools and metrics in light of our changing risk environment. Some of these tools are common to a number of risk categories, while others are tailored to the particular features of specific risk categories. The advanced internal tools and metrics we currently use to measure, manage and report our risks are:

  • RWA equivalent. This is defined as total risk-weighted assets (“RWA”) plus a theoretical amount for specific allocated Common Equity Tier 1 capital deduction items if these were converted into RWA. RWA form the key factor in determining the bank’s regulatory capital adequacy as reflected in the Common Equity Tier 1 capital ratio. RWA equivalents are used to set targets for the growth of our businesses and monitored within our management reporting systems. As a general rule, RWA are calculated in accordance with the currently valid CRR/CRD 4 framework, as implemented into German law (where necessary) and used within our forward looking risk and capital planning processes.
  • Expected loss. We use expected loss as a measure of our credit and operational risk. Expected loss is a measurement of the loss we can expect induced by defaults within a one-year period from these risks as of the respective reporting date, based on our historical loss experience. When calculating expected loss for credit risk, we take into account credit risk ratings, collateral, maturities and statistical averaging procedures to reflect the risk characteristics of our different types of exposures and facilities. All parameter assumptions are based on statistical considerations of up to nine years based on our internal default and loss history as well as external benchmarks. We use expected loss as a tool of our risk management process and as part of our management reporting systems. We also consider the applicable results of the expected loss calculations as a component of our collectively assessed allowance for credit losses included in our financial statements. For operational risk we determine the expected loss from statistical averages of our internal loss history, recent risk trends as well as forward looking estimates.
  • Return on risk-weighted assets (“RoRWA”). In times of regulatory capital constraints, RoRWA has become an important metric to assess our client relationships’ profitability, in particular for credit risk. RoRWA is currently the primary performance measure and continues to attract more attention than the previously used RARoC profitability measure based on economic capital.
  • Value-at-risk. We use the value-at-risk approach to derive quantitative measures for our trading book market risks under normal market conditions and by means of the stressed value-at-risk under stressed market conditions. Our respective value-at-risk figures play a role in both internal and external (regulatory) reporting. For a given portfolio, value-at-risk measures the potential future loss (in terms of market value) that, under normal/stressed market conditions, is not expected to be exceeded with a defined confidence level in a defined period. The value-at-risk for a total portfolio represents a measure of our diversified market risk (aggregated, using pre-determined correlations) under normal/stressed market conditions in that portfolio.
  • Economic capital. Economic capital measures the amount of capital we need to absorb very severe unexpected losses arising from our exposures. “Very severe” in this context means that economic capital is set at a level to cover with a probability of 99.98 % the aggregated unexpected losses within one year. We calculate economic capital for credit risk, for market risk including trading default risk, for operational risk and for business risk.

Stress testing

We have a strong commitment to stress testing performed on a regular basis in order to assess the impact of a severe economic downturn on our risk profile and financial position. These exercises complement traditional risk measures and represent an integral part of our strategic and capital planning process. Our stress testing framework comprises regular Group-wide stress tests based on internally defined benchmark and more severe macroeconomic global downturn scenarios. We include all material risk types into our stress testing exercises. The time-horizon of internal stress tests is one year. Our methodologies undergo regular scrutiny from internal experts as well as regulators to review whether they correctly capture the impact of a given stress scenario. These analyses are complemented by portfolio- and country-specific stress tests as well as regulatory requirements, such as annual reverse stress tests and additional stress tests requested by our regulators on the group or legal entity level. Moreover, a capital planning stress test is performed annually to assess the viability of our capital plan in adverse circumstances and to demonstrate a clear link between risk appetite, business strategy, capital plan and stress testing. An integrated procedure allows us to assess the impact of ad-hoc scenarios that simulate potential imminent financial or geopolitical shocks.

The initial phase of our internal stress tests consists of defining a macroeconomic downturn scenario by dbResearch in cooperation with business specialists. dbResearch monitors the political and economic development around the world and maintains a macro-economic heat map that identifies potentially harmful scenarios. Based on quantitative models and expert judgments, economic parameters such as foreign exchange rates, interest rates, GDP growth or unemployment rates are set accordingly to reflect the impact on our business. The scenario parameters are translated into specific risk drivers by subject matter experts in the risk units. Using internal models metrics such as RWA, losses and economic capital under stress are computed by risk type. These results are aggregated at the Group level, and key metrics such as the SNLP, the CET 1 ratio and ICA ratio under stress are derived. Stress testing results and the underlying scenarios are reviewed across risk types on various levels by senior managers within Risk, Finance and the business units. After comparing these results against our defined risk appetite, senior management decides on specific mitigation actions to remediate the stress impact in alignment with the overall strategic and capital plan if certain limits are breached. The results also feed into the annual recovery planning which is crucial for the recoverability of the bank in times of crisis. The outcome is presented to senior management up to the Management Board to raise awareness on the highest level as it provides key insights into specific business vulnerabilities and contributes to the overall risk profile assessment of the bank. In 2014 we remained well capitalized within our internal stress testing program under various severe stress events. By choosing actions out of our pool of maintained recovery measures we would have been able to mitigate shortfalls under those stress scenarios directly. A reverse stress test is performed annually in order to challenge our business model to determine the severity of scenarios that would cause us to become unviable. Such a reverse stress test is based on a hypothetical macroeconomic scenario or idiosyncratic event and takes into account severe impacts of major risks on our results. Comparing the hypothetical macroeconomic scenario that would be necessary to result in our non-viability according to the reverse stress, to the current economic environment, we consider that the probability of occurrence of such a hypothetical macroeconomic scenario is extremely low. Given the extremely low probability of the reverse stress test scenario, we do not believe that our business continuity is at risk.

Stress Testing Framework of Deutsche Bank Group
Stress Testing Framework of Deutsche Bank Group (diagram)

Risk Reporting and Measurement Systems

We have centralized risk data and systems supporting regulatory reporting and external disclosures, as well as internal management reporting for credit, market, operational (including legal risk), business, reputational, liquidity risk, model risk and compliance risk (in accordance with MaRisk). The risk infrastructure incorporates the relevant legal entities and business divisions and provides the basis for tailor-made reporting on risk positions, capital adequacy and limit utilization to the relevant functions on a regular and ad-hoc basis. Established units within Finance and Risk assume responsibility for measurement, analysis and reporting of risk while promoting sufficient quality and integrity of risk-related data. Our risk management systems are reviewed by Group Audit following a risk-based audit approach. Our Management Board confirms, for the purpose of Article 435 CRR, that our risk management systems are adequate with regard to our risk profile and strategy.

The main reports on risk and capital management that are used to provide the central governance bodies with information relating to Group Risk Exposures are the following:

  • Our Risk and Capital Profile is presented monthly to the CaR and the Management Board and is subsequently submitted to the Risk Committee of the Supervisory Board for information. It comprises an overview of the current risk, capital and liquidity status of the Group, also incorporating information on regulatory capital and economic capital adequacy.
  • An overview of our capital, liquidity and funding is presented to the CaR by Group Capital Management and the Group Treasurer every month. It comprises information on key metrics including CRR/CRD 4 Common Equity Tier 1 capital and the CRR/CRD 4 leverage ratio, as well as an overview of our current funding and liquidity status, the liquidity stress test results and contingency measures.
  • Results of the group-wide macroeconomic stress tests that are performed twice per quarter and/or more regularly are reported to and discussed at the PRC.

The above reports are complemented by a suite of other standard and ad-hoc management reports of Risk and Finance, which are presented to several different senior committees responsible for risk and capital management at Group level.