Adverse Scenario: 0 million EUR (no conversions considered for CET1 computation)
Baseline Scenario: 0 million EUR (no conversions considered for CET1 computation)
Additional Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruments eligible for CET1 conversion
Adverse Scenario: 0 million EUR
Baseline Scenario: 0 million EUR
Exposure and Risk Analysis
Baseline Scenario (as of 31 December 2013)
Exposure Type
F-IRB Exposure
A-IRB Exposure
STA Exposure
Risk Exposure
Non-defaulted
0
0
0
0
Defaulted
0
0
0
0
Corporates
0
0
0
0
SME
0
0
0
0
Retail
0
0
0
0
Secured on real estate property
0
0
0
0
Other Retail
0
0
0
0
Equity
0
0
0
0
Securitisation
0
0
0
0
Other non-credit obligation assets
0
0
0
0
Adverse Scenario (as of 31 December 2013)
Exposure Type
F-IRB Exposure
A-IRB Exposure
STA Exposure
Risk Exposure
Non-defaulted
0
0
0
0
Defaulted
0
0
0
0
Corporates
0
0
0
0
SME
0
0
0
0
Retail
0
0
0
0
Secured on real estate property
0
0
0
0
Other Retail
0
0
0
0
Equity
0
0
0
0
Securitisation
0
0
0
0
Other non-credit obligation assets
0
0
0
0
Impairment and Provisions
Baseline Scenario (2014 - 2016)
Year
Impairment Rate
Stock of Provisions (in EUR)
Coverage Ratio (Default Stock)
2014
0.02%
10
40.00%
2015
0.02%
20
40.00%
2016
0.02%
30
40.54%
Adverse Scenario (2014 - 2016)
Year
Impairment Rate
Stock of Provisions (in EUR)
Coverage Ratio (Default Stock)
2014
0.02%
10
40.00%
2015
0.02%
20
40.00%
2016
0.02%
30
40.54%
Summary of Key Observations
Danske Bank's CET1 ratio decreased from 13.7% to 11.7% under the Adverse Scenario but remained above the 5.5% threshold.
The Baseline Scenario showed a more favorable outcome, with the CET1 ratio increasing to 14.5%, meeting the 8.0% threshold.
The bank experienced a cumulative loss in the trading book under the adverse scenario, but the impact was less severe in the baseline scenario.
The impairment rates and provisions were relatively stable across the test period in both scenarios, with the coverage ratio showing a slight decline in the adverse scenario.
No mandatory conversions or eligible instruments for CET1 conversion were reported in either scenario.
The risk exposure increased in the adverse scenario, indicating higher vulnerability to stress events.