Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, June 2020

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The June 2020 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about dealer financing to relative-value (RV) fixed-income hedge funds and mortgage real estate investment trusts (REITs) during the sharp liquidity deterioration in the Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities (MBS) markets in mid-March 2020. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to non-dealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between May 5, 2020, and May 18, 2020. The core questions asked about changes between February 2020 and May 2020.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

Responses to the core questions in the June survey offered a few insights into recent changes in the terms under which dealers facilitate their clients’ securities and derivatives transactions. With regard to the credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types across the entire range of securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

• A substantial fraction of respondents indicated having tightened price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives across all classes of counterparties (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit). In particular, more respondents (roughly four-fifths) indicated so for hedge funds and trading REITs than for other client types. Across all counterparty types, the net fractions of respondents reporting tightened price and nonprice terms were at the highest levels since the survey began in 2011. In addition, more than half of respondents indicated dedicating increased resources and attention to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and central counterparties.
• A substantial fraction of respondents indicated increased volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes for most counterparty types, and more respondents indicated so for dealers, hedge funds, and trading REITs than for other client types.

With respect to clients’ use of financial leverage, on net, more than three-fifths of dealers—the highest fraction since the survey began in 2011—indicated decreased use by hedge funds and trading REITs (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage). A small net fraction of dealers indicated a decrease in the use of leverage by the remaining types of counterparties.

With regard to OTC derivatives markets, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

• While nonprice terms in master agreements for OTC derivatives remained largely unchanged, dealers responded that initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives increased, on net, for both average and most-favored clients. The portion of dealers indicating increased initial margin requirements varied across different types of OTC derivatives, with the largest fraction (two-thirds) of dealers indicating so for OTC credit derivatives referencing securitized products.
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes increased, on net, across all types of OTC derivatives, with varying net portions of respondents (ranging from one-sixth to one-half) indicating increases in the volume and duration of such disputes.

With respect to securities financing transactions, respondents indicated the following:

• A net fraction of more than one-half of dealers reported increased demand for funding of investment-grade bonds, high-yield bonds, non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and consumer asset-backed securities (ABS) (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning). The net fractions are record highs (since the survey began in 2011) for investment-grade bonds, high-yield bonds, CMBS, and consumer ABS. By contrast, a net fraction of approximately one-third of dealers reported decreased demand to fund equities. For agency RMBS, dealers reported no changes in funding demand on net.
• A substantial portion of dealers reported tightening funding terms for various types of securities. In particular, most dealers reported tightened terms for financing non-agency RMBS, CMBS, and consumer ABS.
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes increased, on net, across all collateral types, with a net fraction of more than one-half of respondents indicating increases in the volume and duration of disputes involving non-agency RMBS and CMBS.
• A substantial portion of respondents indicated deteriorated liquidity and functioning across all types of markets except for the equity market. More than four-fifths of respondents indicated so for the non-agency RMBS and CMBS markets, and more than one-half did for the high-yield bond and consumer ABS markets.³

Special Questions on Dealer Financing to Relative-Value Hedge Funds and Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts in Mid-March 2020
(Questions 81-90)

Liquidity conditions in the Treasury and agency MBS market deteriorated sharply in mid-March amid reports of position unwinds by RV fixed-income hedge funds as well as margin calls and forced liquidations by mortgage REITs. In the special questions, dealers were asked about changes in funding availability to and demand from RV fixed-income hedge funds and mortgage REITs and the main reasons for those changes.

With respect to funding collateralized by Treasury securities offered to RV fixed-income hedge funds, dealers reported the following:

• On net, dealers reported no changes in funding volume collateralized by Treasury securities to RV hedge fund clients.
• On net, approximately one-fourth of dealers reported a decrease in the availability of funding collateralized by Treasury securities to RV hedge fund clients.
  • Dealers did not cite one dominant reason for the decrease in the availability of funding to RV hedge funds. The deteriorated financial strength of RV hedge funds and Treasury market conditions (either the liquidity and functioning of Treasury markets or market uncertainty) were cited as the most important reasons.
• On net, approximately one-fourth of dealers reported an increase in the demand for funding collateralized by Treasury securities from RV hedge fund clients.
  • Dealers cited increased availability of trading opportunities and a deterioration in Treasury market liquidity and functioning as the two most important reasons for the increase in their RV hedge fund clients’ funding demand.

With respect to funding collateralized by agency MBS offered to mortgage REITs, dealers reported the following:

• On net, more than nine-tenths of dealers reported a decrease in funding volume collateralized by agency MBS to mortgage REIT clients.
• On net, approximately one-half of dealers reported a decrease in the availability of funding collateralized by agency MBS to mortgage REIT clients.
  • Dealers most frequently cited the deterioration in the financial strength of counterparties as the most important reason for the decrease in their funding availability to mortgage REITs.
  • The next most commonly cited reasons were a deterioration in agency MBS market liquidity and functioning and a diminished risk appetite.
• On net, approximately one-half of the dealers reported a decrease in the demand for funding collateralized by agency MBS from mortgage REIT clients.
  • Dealers cited diminished risk-taking capacity of mortgage REIT clients as the most important reason for the decrease in the demand for funding.
  • The next most commonly cited reasons for the decrease in the demand for funding were agency MBS market conditions (both liquidity and functioning as well as market uncertainty).

This document was prepared by Seung Kwak, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Assistance in developing and administering the survey was provided by staff members in the Capital Markets Function, the Statistics Function, and the Markets Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

1. For questions that ask about credit terms, net percentages equal the percentage of institutions that reported tightening terms (“tightened considerably” or “tightened somewhat”) minus the percentage of institutions that reported easing terms (“eased considerably” or “eased somewhat”). For questions that ask about demand, net fractions equal the percentage of institutions that reported increased demand (“increased considerably” or “increased somewhat”) minus the percentage of institutions that reported decreased demand (“decreased considerably” or “decreased somewhat”). Return to text

2. Question 80, not discussed here, was optional and allowed respondents to provide additional comments. Return to text

3. Note that survey respondents were instructed to report changes in liquidity and functioning in the market for the underlying collateral to be funded through repurchase agreements and similar secured financing transactions, not changes in the funding markets themselves. This question was not asked with respect to equity markets in the core questions. Return to text

 

Exhibit 1: Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

 

Results of the June 2020 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

The following results include the original instructions provided to the survey respondents. Please note that percentages are based on the number of financial institutions that gave responses other than "Not applicable." Components may not add to totals due to rounding.

 

Counterparty Types

Questions 1 through 40 ask about credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types, considering the entire range of securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions. Question 1 focuses on dealers and other financial intermediaries as counterparties; questions 2 and 3 on central counterparties and other financial utilities; questions 4 through 10 focus on hedge funds; questions 11 through 16 on trading real estate investment trusts (REITs); questions 17 through 22 on mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), pension plans, and endowments; questions 23 through 28 on insurance companies; questions 29 through 34 on separately managed accounts established with investment advisers; and questions 35 through 38 on nonfinancial corporations. Questions 39 and 40 ask about mark and collateral disputes for each of the aforementioned counterparty types.

In some questions, the survey differentiates between the compensation demanded for bearing credit risk (price terms) and the contractual provisions used to mitigate exposures (nonprice terms). If your institution's terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space. Where material differences exist across different business areas--for example, between traditional prime brokerage and OTC derivatives--please answer with regard to the business area generating the most exposure and explain in the appropriate comment space.

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

1. Over the past three months, how has the amount of resources and attention your firm devotes to management of concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries (such as large banking institutions) changed?

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

2. Over the past three months, how has the amount of resources and attention your firm devotes to management of concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties and other financial utilities changed?

3. To what extent have changes in the practices of central counterparties, including margin requirements and haircuts, influenced the credit terms your institution applies to clients on bilateral transactions which are not cleared?

Hedge Funds

4. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to hedge funds as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

5. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to hedge funds across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

6. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to hedge funds have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 4 and 5), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	7	58.3
      2nd Most Important	4	33.3
      3rd Most Important	1	8.3
      Total	12	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	3	42.9
      3rd Most Important	4	57.1
      Total	7	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	2	66.7
      Total	3	100.0

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	2	50.0
      3rd Most Important	2	50.0
      Total	4	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	33.3
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	1	33.3
      Total	3	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	9	64.3
      2nd Most Important	4	28.6
      3rd Most Important	1	7.1
      Total	14	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	50.0
      2nd Most Important	1	50.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

7. How has the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?

8. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by hedge funds changed over the past three months?

9. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the availability of additional (and currently unutilized) financial leverage under agreements currently in place with hedge funds (for example, under prime broker, warehouse agreements, and other committed but undrawn or partly drawn facilities) changed over the past three months?

10. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) hedge funds changed over the past three months?

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

11. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to trading REITs as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

12. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to trading REITs across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

13. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to trading REITs have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 11 and 12), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	9	60.0
      2nd Most Important	5	33.3
      3rd Most Important	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	4	50.0
      3rd Most Important	4	50.0
      Total	8	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	3	100.0
      Total	3	100.0

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	50.0
      3rd Most Important	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	8	53.3
      2nd Most Important	5	33.3
      3rd Most Important	2	13.3
      Total	15	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

14. How has the intensity of efforts by trading REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?

15. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by trading REITs changed over the past three months?

16. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) trading REITs changed over the past three months?

Mutual Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, Pension Plans, and Endowments

17. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

18. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

19. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 17 and 18) what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	2	50.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	2	50.0
      Total	4	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	3	75.0
      3rd Most Important	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	8	72.7
      2nd Most Important	2	18.2
      3rd Most Important	1	9.1
      Total	11	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

20. How has the intensity of efforts by mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?

21. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution, how has the use of financial leverage by each of the following types of clients changed over the past three months?

1. Mutual funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. ETFs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	4	20.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Pension plans

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

4. Endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

22. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments changed over the past three months?

Insurance Companies

23. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to insurance companies as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

24. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to insurance companies across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

25. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to insurance companies have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 23 and 24) what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	33.3
      2nd Most Important	2	66.7
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	3	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	6	75.0
      2nd Most Important	2	25.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	8	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

26. How has the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?

27. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by insurance companies changed over the past three months?

28. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) insurance companies changed over the past three months?

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

29. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

30. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

31. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 29 and 30), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	3	75.0
      2nd Most Important	1	25.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	4	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	3	50.0
      2nd Most Important	2	33.3
      3rd Most Important	1	16.7
      Total	6	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

32. How has the intensity of efforts by investment advisers to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms on behalf of separately managed accounts changed over the past three months?

33. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by separately managed accounts established with investment advisers changed over the past three months?

34. How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to separately managed accounts established with most-favored (as a function of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) investment advisers changed over the past three months?

Nonfinancial Corporations

35. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to nonfinancial corporations as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

36. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to nonfinancial corporations across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

37. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to nonfinancial corporations have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 35 and 36) what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	5	83.3
      2nd Most Important	1	16.7
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	6	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	2	66.7
      Total	3	100.0

   5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	4	50.0
      2nd Most Important	1	12.5
      3rd Most Important	3	37.5
      Total	8	100.0

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

38. How has the intensity of efforts by nonfinancial corporations to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?

Mark and Collateral Disputes

39. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes with clients of each of the following types changed?

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	4	18.2
   Increased Somewhat	10	45.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	31.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	4	17.4
   Increased Somewhat	10	43.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	34.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	4	21.1
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	42.1
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	6	28.6
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	52.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	10.5
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	4	20.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	55.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	10.5
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

40. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with clients of each of the following types changed?

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	13.6
   Increased Somewhat	9	40.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	45.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	8.7
   Increased Somewhat	11	47.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	43.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	15.8
   Increased Somewhat	8	42.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	42.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	9.5
   Increased Somewhat	5	23.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	61.9
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	7	36.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	10.0
   Increased Somewhat	7	35.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	55.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	57.9
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

Questions 41 through 51 ask about OTC derivatives trades. Question 41 focuses on nonprice terms applicable to new and renegotiated master agreements. Questions 42 through 48 ask about the initial margin requirements for most-favored and average clients applicable to different types of contracts: Question 42 focuses on foreign exchange (FX); question 43 on interest rates; question 44 on equity; question 45 on contracts referencing corporate credits (single-name and indexes); question 46 on credit derivatives referencing structured products such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) (specific tranches and indexes); question 47 on commodities; and question 48 on total return swaps (TRS) referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans). Question 49 asks about posting of nonstandard collateral pursuant to OTC derivatives contracts. Questions 50 and 51 focus on mark and collateral disputes involving contracts of each of the aforementioned types.

If your institution’s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space.

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

41. Over the past three months, how have nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements put in place with your institution's client changed?

1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

6. Other

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
   Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
   Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
   Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
   Total	0	Undefined

Initial Margin

42. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC FX derivatives changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

43. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC interest rate derivatives changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0
   Total	20	100.0

44. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC equity derivatives changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	15.8
   Increased Somewhat	5	26.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

45. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC credit derivatives referencing corporates (single-name corporates or corporate indexes) changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	7	41.2
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	58.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	29.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	70.6
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

46. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC credit derivatives referencing securitized products (such as specific ABS or MBS tranches and associated indexes) changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	9	69.2
   Remained Basically Unchanged	4	30.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	8	61.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	38.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

47. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC commodity derivatives changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	28.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

48. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans) changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.9
   Increased Somewhat	5	29.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	64.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. id="t165"Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	27.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	72.2
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

Nonstandard Collateral

49. Over the past three months, how has the posting of nonstandard collateral (that is, other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities) as permitted under relevant agreements changed?

Mark and Collateral Disputes

50. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to contracts of each of the following types changed?

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	16.7
   Increased Somewhat	6	33.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	44.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	15.8
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	4	25.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	18.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	43.8
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	4	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	14.3
   Increased Somewhat	3	21.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	57.1
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	7.7
   Increased Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	69.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	10.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	70.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	10	100.0

51. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes relating to contracts of each of the following types changed?

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	6	33.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	55.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	4	21.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	7	43.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	6	37.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	56.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	6	42.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	30.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	53.8
   Decreased Somewhat	2	15.4
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	30.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	70.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	10	100.0

Securities Financing

Questions 52 through 79 ask about securities funding at your institution--that is, lending to clients collateralized by securities. Such activities may be conducted on a "repo" desk, on a trading desk engaged in facilitation for institutional clients and/or proprietary transactions, on a funding desk, or on a prime brokerage platform. Questions 52 through 55 focus on lending against high-grade corporate bonds; questions 56 through 59 on lending against high-yield corporate bonds; questions 60 and 61 on lending against equities (including through stock loan); questions 62 through 65 on lending against agency residential mortgage-backed securities (agency RMBS); questions 66 through 69 on lending against non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (non-agency RMBS); questions 70 through 73 on lending against commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS); and questions 74 through 77 on consumer ABS (for example, backed by credit card receivables or auto loans). Questions 78 and 79 ask about mark and collateral disputes for lending backed by each of the aforementioned contract types.

If your institution’s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space.

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

52. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which high-grade corporate bonds are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	10	47.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	47.6
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	11	52.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	42.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	10	47.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	52.4
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	4.8
      Tightened Somewhat	10	47.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	47.6
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	8	38.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	57.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	10	47.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	52.4
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	11	52.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	47.6
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	4.8
      Tightened Somewhat	10	47.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	47.6
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

53. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of high-grade corporate bonds by your institution's clients changed?

54. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of high-grade corporate bonds by your institution's clients changed?

55. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the high-grade corporate bond market changed?

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

56. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which high-yield corporate bonds are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	15.8
      Tightened Somewhat	7	36.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	42.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	15.8
      Tightened Somewhat	7	36.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	42.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	26.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	36.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	36.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	26.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	36.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	36.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	36.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.3
      Tightened Somewhat	8	42.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	15.8
      Tightened Somewhat	9	47.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	36.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	15.8
      Tightened Somewhat	9	47.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	36.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

57. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of high-yield corporate bonds by your institution's clients changed?

58. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of high-yield corporate bonds by your institution's clients changed?

59. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the high-yield corporate bond market changed?

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

60. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which equities are funded (including through stock loan) changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	30.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	7	35.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	20.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	9	45.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	45.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	5	25.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	30.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	20.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	30.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

61. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of equities (including through stock loan) by your institution's clients changed?

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

62. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which agency RMBS are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	11	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	50.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	8	36.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	59.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	4.5
      Tightened Somewhat	11	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	45.5
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	11	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	40.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5
      Eased Considerably	1	4.5
      Total	22	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	9	40.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	59.1
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	27.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	68.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	4.5
      Tightened Somewhat	9	40.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	54.5
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	9	40.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	54.5
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	22	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

63. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of agency RMBS by your institution's clients changed?

64. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of agency RMBS by your institution's clients changed?

65. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the agency RMBS market changed?

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

66. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which non-agency RMBS are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	16.7
      Tightened Somewhat	11	61.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	22.2
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	4	22.2
      Tightened Somewhat	9	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	22.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	7	38.9
      Tightened Somewhat	8	44.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	11.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	6	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	9	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	11.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	11.1
      Tightened Somewhat	9	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	33.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	11.1
      Tightened Somewhat	9	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	33.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	6	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	9	50.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	11.1
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.6
      Total	18	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	27.8
      Tightened Somewhat	10	55.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	11.1
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.6
      Total	18	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

67. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of non-agency RMBS by your institution's clients changed?

68. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of non-agency RMBS by your institution's clients changed?

69. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the non-agency RMBS market changed?

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

70. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which CMBS are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	6	37.5
      Tightened Somewhat	7	43.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	18.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	6	37.5
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	18.8
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	8	50.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	6.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	8	50.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	6.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	31.3
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	5	31.3
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	4	25.0
      Tightened Somewhat	7	43.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	25.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	8	50.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	6.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	8	50.0
      Tightened Somewhat	6	37.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	6.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

71. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of CMBS by your institution's clients changed?

72. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of CMBS by your institution's clients changed?

73. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the CMBS market changed?

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

74. Over the past three months, how have the terms under which consumer ABS (for example, backed by credit card receivables or auto loans) are funded changed?

1. Terms for average clients
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	20.0
      Tightened Somewhat	8	53.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	20.0
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	13.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	13.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
   1. Maximum amount of funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	3	20.0
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	5	33.3
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	13.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	5	33.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	13.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	5	33.3
      Tightened Somewhat	7	46.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	2	13.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	Undefined
      Tightened Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
      Eased Somewhat	0	Undefined
      Eased Considerably	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

75. Over the past three months, how has demand for funding of consumer ABS by your institution's clients changed?

76. Over the past three months, how has demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days of consumer ABS by your institution's clients changed?

77. Over the past three months, how have liquidity and functioning in the consumer ABS market changed?

Mark and Collateral Disputes

78. Over the past three months, how has the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to lending against each of the following collateral types changed?

1. High-grade corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	6	31.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	27.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	66.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	9	42.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	52.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	18.8
   Increased Somewhat	7	43.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	31.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	18.8
   Increased Somewhat	7	43.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	31.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	13.3
   Increased Somewhat	6	40.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	6	40.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

79. Over the past three months, how has the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes relating to lending against each of the following collateral types changed?

1. High-grade corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	26.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	16.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	7	33.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	66.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	18.8
   Increased Somewhat	5	31.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	3	18.8
   Increased Somewhat	5	31.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	14.3
   Increased Somewhat	4	28.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	8	57.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

Optional Question

Question 80 requests feedback on any other issues you judge to be important relating to credit terms applicable to securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives contracts.

Special Questions on Funding to relative-value hedge funds and mortgage REITs during the sharp liquidity deterioration in the Treasury and agency MBS market in March 2020¹

Liquidity conditions in the Treasury market deteriorated sharply in mid-March, and various Treasury bases experienced dislocations amid reports of position unwinds by arbitrageurs, including relative-value fixed-income hedge funds. Similarly, dislocations in the agency MBS market occurred amid reports of margin calls and forced liquidations by mortgage REITs. The special questions below ask about the factors that may have contributed to the unwinding of relative-value hedge fund and mortgage REIT positions during mid-March. Questions 81–85 ask about changes in funding collateralized by Treasury securities to relative-value hedge funds. Questions 86–90 ask about changes in funding collateralized by agency MBS to mortgage REITs.

Funding to relative-value hedge funds

81. In mid-March, how did your institution’s overall volume of lending collateralized by Treasury securities to relative-value hedge fund clients change compared with that in mid-February?

82. In mid-March, how did your institution’s availability of funding collateralized by Treasury securities to relative-value hedge fund clients change compared with that in mid-February?

 

83. To the extent that your institution’s availability of funding collateralized by Treasury securities increased or decreased in mid-March, what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please rank the first, second, and third most important factors.)

1. Reasons for an increase
   1. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Change in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Change in Treasury market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Change in Treasury market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Lower internal Treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	100.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

2. Reasons for a decrease
   1. Decreased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   2. Change in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	50.0
      2nd most important factor	1	25.0
      3rd most important factor	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   3. Decreased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	50.0
      2nd most important factor	1	50.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   4. Change in Treasury market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	50.0
      2nd most important factor	1	50.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   5. Change in Treasury market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	20.0
      2nd most important factor	2	40.0
      3rd most important factor	2	40.0
      Total	5	100.0

   6. Higher internal Treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

84. In mid-March, how did demand for funding collateralized by Treasury securities from your institution’s relative-value hedge fund clients change compared with that in mid-February?

85. To the extent that your institution’s relative-value hedge fund clients’ demand for funding collateralized by Treasury securities increased or decreased in mid-March, what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please rank the first, second, and third most important factors.)

1. Possible reasons for increase
   1. Increased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

   2. Increased capacity of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Increased availability of suitable collateral

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	100.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   4. Increased availability of trading opportunities

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	42.9
      2nd most important factor	3	42.9
      3rd most important factor	1	14.3
      Total	7	100.0

   5. Change in Treasury market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	42.9
      2nd most important factor	4	57.1
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	7	100.0

   6. Change in Treasury market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	3	100.0
      Total	3	100.0

   7. Greater fund inflows

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	3	100.0

2. Possible reasons for decrease
   1. Decreased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	50.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

   2. Decreased capacity of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	3	75.0
      3rd most important factor	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   3. Decreased availability of suitable collateral

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   4. Decreased availability of trading opportunities

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Change in Treasury market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   6. Change in Treasury market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	50.0
      3rd most important factor	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

   7. Greater fund outflows

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

Funding to mortgage REITs

86. In mid-March, how did your institution’s overall volume of lending collateralized by agency MBS to mortgage REIT clients change compared with that in mid-February?

87. In mid-March, how did your institution’s availability of funding collateralized by agency MBS to mortgage REIT clients change compared with that in mid-February?

88. To the extent that your institution’s availability of funding collateralized by agency MBS increased or decreased in mid-March, what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please rank the first, second, and third most important factors.)

1. Reasons for an increase
   1. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Change in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Change in agency MBS market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Change in agency MBS market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Lower internal Treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

2. Reasons for a decrease
   1. Decreased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	2	40.0
      3rd most important factor	3	60.0
      Total	5	100.0

   2. Change in current or expected financial strength of counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	8	88.9
      2nd most important factor	1	11.1
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	9	100.0

   3. Decreased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	100.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   4. Change in agency MBS market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	20.0
      2nd most important factor	3	60.0
      3rd most important factor	1	20.0
      Total	5	100.0

   5. Change in agency MBS market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

   6. Higher internal Treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

89. In mid-March, how did demand for funding collateralized by agency MBS from your institution’s mortgage REIT clients change compared with that in mid-February?

90. To the extent that your institution’s mortgage REIT clients’ demand for funding collateralized by agency MBS increased or decreased in mid-March, what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please rank the first, second, and third most important factors.)

1. Possible reasons for increase
   1. Increased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increased capacity of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Increased availability of suitable collateral

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Increased availability of trading opportunities

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Change in agency MBS market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   6. Change in agency MBS market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	100.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	50.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

2. Possible reasons for decrease
   1. Decreased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	1	100.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   2. Decreased capacity of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	4	44.4
      2nd most important factor	2	22.2
      3rd most important factor	3	33.3
      Total	9	100.0

   3. Decreased availability of suitable collateral

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	50.0
      2nd most important factor	1	25.0
      3rd most important factor	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   4. Decreased availability of trading opportunities

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   5. Change in agency MBS market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	28.6
      2nd most important factor	4	57.1
      3rd most important factor	1	14.3
      Total	7	100.0

   6. Change in agency MBS market uncertainty

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	16.7
      2nd most important factor	2	33.3
      3rd most important factor	3	50.0
      Total	6	100.0

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	4	100.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	4	100.0

1. The following special questions are intended to provide better context for interpreting the core set of questions in the previous section, which focus on changes in credit terms over the preceding three months. Unlike the core questions, these special questions will not be included in the survey on an ongoing basis. Return to text