Egenkapitalbevis konferanse, Oslo, September 2010 Kim Bergoe, Managing Director, European Investment Banking

Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Eneste globale investment bank med fokus kun på finansielle virksomheder Globalt omkring 500 medarbejdere. Omkring 85 aktie analytikere globalt. Dækker omkring 615 finans aktier globalt. Omkring 80 specialist sales and sales trading globalt. Omkring 140 Investment banking medarbejdere. Førende M&A advisor til Amerikanske finans institutioner. Kraftig udbygning af Europæisk Investment Banking over de seneste måneder. Noteret på Nasdaq, markedsværdi ca. USD 800m NOK14.0 billion Rights issue Underwriter November 2009 SEK15 billion Rights issue Co-Manager August 2009 €1.4 billion Rights issue Underwriter April 2009

Egenkapitalbankerne og Norske bankers tilpasning til nyt regelverk sett fra London

Basel 3 – new global minimum capital standards Our take Summary of BIS proposals At its 12 September 2010 meeting, the Group of Governors and Heads of Supervision, the oversight body of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, announced a substantial strengthening of existing capital requirements. These will be presented to the Seoul G20 Leaders summit in November We believe the new capital levels are in line with expectations, but that the timelines are considerably more generous and will serve to calm immediate capital raising fears The new 4.5% ratio will be phased in by 2015, but the new 2.5% buffer will be fully phased by 2019 and deductions from common equity tier 1 will be slowly phased in by 2018. This should enable most banks to reach the new requirements naturally, while others will need to pay lower dividends While we cannot rule out that some banks would want to meet the new minimums early by raising capital in the short term, it certainly seems to be a choice rather than a requirement for most of the sector. We see excess capital restricted mainly to the Nordic region But some uncertainty continues - an extra level of capital for systemically important banks is not yet introduced and work continues on these issues. Most likely the approach to systemically important financial institutions which could include combinations of capital surcharges, contingent capital and bail-in debt Basel Committee minimum ratios & KBWe 2012 levels Source: KBW Research, BCBS Phase-in arrangements Source: BCBS. Shading indicates transition preriod 4

Basel 3 – pro-forma capital Pro-forma impact analysis We look at the impacts on the European banks by observing the capital ratios if all new measures were introduced by 2012, which is (i) how we think the market will choose to look at excess capital and (ii) is probably as far out as anyone is forecasting with any certainty. In aggregate, the sector sits well above the new minimums even by 2012. There is a larger divergence at the individual bank level. It is also important to stress that being above the minimum does NOT constitute excess capital. We expect banks to operate above the minimum – they will not want to operate so close to the minimum that one or two loss-making quarters could start to eat into the buffer The Nordics stand out here as the best placed to perhaps return capital to shareholders. On average, they have a much stronger starting point than other Europeans, with a Basel 2 equity tier 1 ratio of 9-12%, thanks to faster recapitalizations in the crisis due to a highly institutional shareholder base. With strong sovereigns, they will also be more likely to feel comfortable enough to return capital to shareholders On the other hand, due to low RWA/asset ratios, the Nordics could be more constrained by the 3% leverage ratio minimum than the risk-adjusted ratio On our current numbers, Swedbank looks best placed with a 10.4% Basel 3 ratio in 2012, and 3.9% leverage ratio, giving a 23% excess capital position versus its equity tier 1 capital Nordic banking sector - Excess capital ignoring transition periods Source: KBW Research estimates 5

Basel 3 – new global liquidity standard Our take Summary of BIS proposals Global liquidity standards have not been revised during 12 September BCBS meeting, but a clarity of timing was given: After an observation period beginning in 2011, the liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) will be introduced on 1 January 2015 The revised net stable funding ratio (NSFR) will be monitored since 2012 and will move to a minimum standard by 1 January 2018 Further guidance and overall calibration of ratios are expected by the end of the year Liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) Less onerous requirements proposed in July 2010, e.g. lower assumed run-off rates for retail and SME deposits and introduction of new 'level 2' of liquid assets (allowed to count up to 40% of the stock of liquid assets) Although positive to see less onerous requirements, it is less important than the NSFR in our opinion Net Stable Funding Ratio (NSFR) The NSFR orinially raised the most industry concerns. We think some investors were still hoping it would be thrown out, but a watering-down and delay until 2018 is still a material positive The main positive of delaying the NSFR is that it clarifies to the bond market that they shouldn't expect banks to try to sell an unreasonably large amount of debt in the next 24 months to meet the new rules Likely issues for banks and analysts New liquidity requirements may incentivise holdings of sovereign debt Basel definition can not easily be estimated from published annual accounts data The weightings applied to different asset and liability categories may require more empirical evidence Liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) and Net stable funding ratio (NSFR) Source: BCBS Liquidity Coverage = Ratio Stock of high quality liquid assets Net cash outflows (30 day horizon) > 100% This metric aims to ensure that a bank maintains an adequate level of unencumbered, high quality assets that can be converted into cash to meet its liquidity needs for a 30-day time horizon under an acute liquidity stress scenario, by which time it is assumed that appropriate actions can be taken Net Stable Funding = Ratio Available amount of stable funding Required amount of stable funding > 100% NSFR is a more established metric to take into account the liquidity risk of off-balance sheet exposures and maturity mismatches, which more simplistic methodologies like loan/deposit ratios ignore Available stable funding (ASF) is the sum product of various baskets of funding and the corresponding ‘ASF factor’ – essentially a liquidity weighting Required stable funding (RSF) is calculated according to the total value of the assets held and funded by a bank (weighted according to asset type) and then added to the total off-balance sheet exposure (again weighted by asset type) Phase-in arrangements Source: BCBS. Shading indicates transition preriod 6

Stoerste Nordiske banker, ROE effekt EKSEMPEL på potentiel effekt af højere egenkapital krav (+100bp equity/lending) Source: Companies, KBW

Yield curve effekt paa margin Yield curve og marginer Nordiske banker (big 6) - Yield curve og margin Source: Companies, Bloomberg, KBW

Stoerste Nordiske banker, ROE effekt EKSEMPEL på potentiel effekt af lavere marginer (-10bp net interest inc/lending) Source: Companies, KBW

Norge i en stærk position Citat fra DNB NOR’s halvårs regnskab: „Norges spesielle situasjon med overskudd i nasjonal- budsjettet og ingen netto statsgjeld bidro til å gi DnB NOR god tilgang på langsiktig finansiering“ Source: DnBNOR 1H2010 report

Egenkapitalbevis eller aktier ? Forskellen på egenkapitalbevisbanker og aktiebanker er ikke kun egenkapitalbeviset. Størstedelen af egenkapitalbevisbankerne er små banker. Den generelt lave likviditet i instrumentet skyldes derfor ikke kun Egenkapitalbeviset, men i lige så høj grad bankernes størrelse. For de mindste banker er det likviditeten i instrumentet og ikke instrumentet selv der holder internationale institutionelle investorer væk. For de største egenkapitalbanker ville der dog efter vores vurdering kunne skabes øget interesse for at investere i banken, hvis instrumentet var en “normal” aktie. Source: DnBNOR 1H2010 report

Konklusion Week endens nyheder fra Basel omkring nye kapital regler var positive i forhold til det forventede. Nordiske banker generelt og Norske banker specielt, står stærkt i forhold til nye kapital og likviditets regler. Likviditets kravene kan få større betydning for sektoren end kapital kravene. Specielt for større banker er en diversificeret funding base vigtig for at sikre gode funding muligheder også i fremtiden. En vel-diversificeret egenkapital investor base kan have positiv betydning for at nå nye internationale funding investorere. De største Sprebanker er interessante også for internationale investorer, men det kan overvejes om Egenkapitalbeviset er det rigtige instrument. Source: DnBNOR 1H2010 report

Disclaimer This presentation has been prepared by Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. This presentation is not for onwards distribution. Neither the whole nor any part of the information in this presentation may be disclosed to, or used by, any other person or used for any other purpose without the prior written consent of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods. Although this material is based upon information that Keefe, Bruyette & Woods considers reliable, Keefe, Bruyette & Woods or any of its connected persons have not verified this information and do not represent that this material is accurate, current, or complete and it should not be relied upon as such. Accordingly, neither Keefe, Bruyette & Woods nor any of its connected persons accepts any liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of, nor makes any representation or warranty, express or implied, with respect to, the information on which this presentation is based or that this information remains unchanged after the issue of this presentation. Content of this presentation should not to be construed as a solicitation or recommendation. The presentation is for information purposes only and is purely indicative. It does not constitute an offer or invitation for sale or purchase of securities or any of the businesses or assets described herein or any form of commitment, advice, recommendation or valuation opinion on the part of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods or its connected persons. No part of this presentation, or the fact that the presentation has been made, forms the basis of or can be relied upon in connection with any contract or investment decision or commitment relating thereto. In this notice, “Keefe, Bruyette & Woods” means Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited and “its connected persons” means the holding company of Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited, the shareholders, subsidiaries and subsidiary undertakings of that holding company and the respective directors, officers, employees and agents of each of them. Keefe, Bruyette & Woods Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Services Authority (Registration No. 221627) 13