Fra Danske Bank:
Q4 2018 vs Q3 2018
In the fourth quarter of 2018, the Group posted a net profit of DKK 3.4 billion, against DKK 2.5 billion in the third quarter. Net interest income amounted to DKK 5.9 billion, an increase of 1% from the level in the third quarter. Net interest income saw a positive effect from lending volume growth, deposit margins as a result of developments in market rates, and lower capital costs.
However, the positive effect was partly offset by a decrease in lending margins, due primarily to developments in market rates, and a decrease in deposit volumes. Net fee income amounted to DKK 4.1 billion, an increase of 8% from the level in the third quarter. Net fee income at Wealth Management increased as a result of performance fees from
asset management. Net trading income amounted to DKK 0.9 billion, a decrease
of 24% from the level in the third quarter.
At Corporates & Institutions, net trading income in FI&C decreased due to a continuation of challenging market conditions, and at Wealth Management, we saw a lower investment result in the health and accident business. Net trading income benefited from seasonal mortgage refinancing at Banking DK.
Other income amounted to DKK 20 million in the fourth quarter of 2018. The decrease was due primarily to a lower risk result in the health and accident business at Wealth Management. Operating expenses amounted to DKK 6.2 billion, a decrease of 15% from the level in the third quarter. Adjusted for the expense for the DKK 1.5 billion donation, operating expenses increased 6%.
Efficiency measures were more than offset by higher compliance costs, including costs relating to the investigation into matters at the Estonian branch, and increased costs at Wealth Management primarily due to costs regarding the integration of SEB Pension Danmark and the sale of Danica Pension in Sweden. Loan impairments showed a net reversal of DKK 43 million, due to continued reversals relating to legacy non-performing loans.
Loan impairments at Corporates & Institutions related to a few single-name exposures, due primarily to ongoing restructurings in the oil and gas industry. The underlying credit quality was consistently strong and was supported by higher collateral values.
