Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, September 2020

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The September 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 two sets of special questions. The first set asked about market functioning, funding terms, and demand for funding for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and the second set asked about dealer funding terms for commercial mortgage real estate investment trusts (commercial mREITs). 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 August 11, 2020, and August 24, 2020. The core questions asked about changes between mid-May 2020 and mid-August 2020.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

Responses to the core questions in the September 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:

• Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were generally unchanged across most classes of counterparties. A small net fraction of dealers reported easing of price terms offered to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and separately managed accounts. However, with regard to trading REITs, about one-fifth of dealers, on net, indicated tightening of price terms and about two-fifths indicated tightening of nonprice terms (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit).³ In addition, about one-third of respondents, on net, indicated an increase in resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and central counterparties.
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for most counterparty types, although about one-third of dealers, on net, indicated a reduction in the volume and one-fifth a reduction in the duration of such disputes with mutual funds and ETFs.

With respect to clients’ use of financial leverage, on net, dealers indicated little change over the past three months (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage) for all classes of counterparties with the exception of trading REITs, for which about two-fifth of dealers, on net, reported a decrease in the use of financial leverage.

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

• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged, on net, for average and most-favored clients.
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained largely unchanged over the past three months for most types of contracts. About one-fifth of respondents, on net, indicated a decrease in the volume of mark and collateral disputes for credit referencing securitized products, and the same net fraction of dealers reported a decrease in the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes for commodity contracts.

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

• Demand for funding remained largely unchanged for most asset classes. A net fraction of approximately one-third of dealers reported increased demand to fund equities, and similar net fractions of dealers reported increased demand for term funding of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and CMBS (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning).
• Terms under which various types of securities are funded have eased for most asset classes since the previous survey, with a substantial portion of dealers reporting easing of funding terms for various types of securities. Most notably, for high-yield corporate bonds and consumer asset-backed securities (ABS), about one-half of respondents indicated easing of funding terms with respect to haircuts and collateral spreads for both average and most-favored clients.
• About two-thirds of respondents, on net, indicated improved market liquidity and functioning for consumer ABS. In other markets, such improvement was reported by about one-half of dealers for CMBS and non-agency RMBS, about two-fifths for high-grade and high-yield corporate bonds, and about one-fourth for agency RMBS (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning).⁴
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained unchanged, on net, across most collateral types. A net fraction of one-fourth of respondents indicated a decrease in the volume, and one-fifth reported a decrease in the duration and persistence of disputes for consumer ABS.

Special Questions on Market Functioning and Funding of Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities and Funding Terms for Commercial Mortgage Real Estate Investment Trusts
(Questions 81-92)

In the first set of special questions, dealers were asked about changes since mid-March in market functioning and funding of Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF)-eligible non-agency CMBS and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS.⁵ The second set of special questions asked about changes in price and nonprice terms of funding offered to commercial mREITs relative to mid-February pre-pandemic levels and to mid-March levels.

With respect to demand for funding and funding terms of TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS, dealers reported the following:

• On net, dealers reported easing of funding terms since mid-March of both TALF-eligible and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS. About one-half of respondents indicated easing of collateral spreads for TALF-eligible and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS; about one-third reported easing of terms referring to the maximum amount of funding and maximum maturity for both TALF-eligible and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS; and about one-fourth reported easing of terms referring to haircuts for TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS.
• Since mid-March, demand for funding remained largely unchanged, on net, for both TALF-eligible and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS.
• About one-third of dealers, on net, reported an improvement in liquidity and market functioning for TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS, whereas liquidity and market functioning were reported to be roughly unchanged for TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS when compared with mid-March levels.

With respect to price and nonprice terms of funding offered to commercial mREITs, dealers reported the following:

• About one-half of dealers reported tightening since mid-February pre-pandemic levels of both price and nonprice terms of funding offered to commercial mREITs.
• All of the dealers that reported tightening of funding terms since mid-February pointed to deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties, most of the dealers pointed to worsening of general market liquidity and functioning, and about two-thirds pointed to reduced willingness to take on risk as among the most important reasons for the change.
• On net, dealers reported no substantial change since mid-March levels in price and nonprice terms of funding offered to commercial mREITs, with about one-fourth of dealers reporting tightening and about one-fifth reporting easing of price and nonprice terms.
• All of the dealers that reported tightening of funding terms since mid-March pointed to the deterioration in the current or expected financial strength of counterparties as one of the most important reasons for the change. Most of these dealers also pointed to worsening of general market liquidity and functioning.
• Most of the dealers that reported easing of funding terms since mid-March pointed to improvement of general market liquidity and functioning attributed to Federal Reserve 13(3) facilities or Federal Reserve purchases of agency CMBS as one of the most important reasons for the change.

This document was prepared by Pawel Szerszen, Division of Research and Statistics, 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. Trading REITs invest in assets backed by real estate rather than directly in real estate assets. Return to text

4. 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

5. See the TALF term sheet for TALF eligibility criteria: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200728a6.pdf. 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 September 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	4	80.0
      2nd Most Important	1	20.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	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

   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	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

   4. Higher 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. 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	1	25.0
      2nd Most Important	2	50.0
      3rd Most Important	1	25.0
      Total	4	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 (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	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

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	7	70.0
      2nd Most Important	1	10.0
      3rd Most Important	2	20.0
      Total	10	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	20.0
      2nd Most Important	3	60.0
      3rd Most Important	1	20.0
      Total	5	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	2	100.0
      Total	2	100.0

   4. Higher 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. 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	2	22.2
      2nd Most Important	6	66.7
      3rd Most Important	1	11.1
      Total	9	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 (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	0.0
      2nd Most Important	2	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   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	4	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	4	100.0

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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

   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	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Reduced 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 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	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	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	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   2. Increased 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	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   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	5	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   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	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. ETFs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

3. Pension plans

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

4. Endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	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	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Reduced 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 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	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	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	2	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   7. More-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

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	0	Undefined
      2nd Most Important	0	Undefined
      3rd Most Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Reduced 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 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	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	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	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   2. Increased 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	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   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	5	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   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	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	25.0
      2nd Most Important	3	75.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      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	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	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	50.0
      3rd Most Important	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	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

   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	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   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	0.0
      2nd Most Important	2	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	2	100.0

   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	4	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	4	100.0

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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

   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	1	4.3
   Increased Somewhat	6	26.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	52.2
   Decreased Somewhat	3	13.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.3
   Total	23	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	21.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	43.5
   Decreased Somewhat	7	30.4
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.3
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	26.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	47.4
   Decreased Somewhat	5	26.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	47.6
   Decreased Somewhat	8	38.1
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	66.7
   Decreased Somewhat	4	19.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	60.0
   Decreased Somewhat	5	25.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	4	21.1
   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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	17.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	69.6
   Decreased Somewhat	3	13.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	13.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	65.2
   Decreased Somewhat	5	21.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2
   Decreased Somewhat	4	21.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	5	23.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	4	19.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
   Decreased Somewhat	5	25.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	68.4
   Decreased Somewhat	4	21.1
   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	19	95.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   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	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	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	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	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	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   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	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   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	2	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   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	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
   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	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	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	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
   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	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
   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	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   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	1	5.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	17.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	64.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9
   Total	17	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	64.3
   Decreased Somewhat	3	21.4
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1
   Total	14	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	8.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	8.3
   Total	12	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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	68.8
   Decreased Somewhat	3	18.8
   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	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	3	21.4
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	78.6
   Decreased Somewhat	3	21.4
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	16.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	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	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	55.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	36.8
      Eased Somewhat	9	47.4
      Eased Considerably	1	5.3
      Total	19	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	40.0
      Eased Somewhat	7	35.0
      Eased Considerably	2	10.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	3	15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	55.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	55.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	35.0
      Eased Somewhat	9	45.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	40.0
      Eased Somewhat	7	35.0
      Eased Considerably	2	10.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	61.1
      Eased Somewhat	6	33.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	52.6
      Eased Somewhat	7	36.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	31.6
      Eased Somewhat	11	57.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

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

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

   5. Other

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

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	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	61.1
      Eased Somewhat	6	33.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	57.9
      Eased Somewhat	6	31.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	31.6
      Eased Somewhat	11	57.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	11.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	33.3
      Eased Somewhat	8	44.4
      Eased Considerably	2	11.1
      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

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	6	30.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
      Eased Somewhat	7	35.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	4	20.0
      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	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	65.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	20.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	4.8
      Tightened Somewhat	3	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	52.4
      Eased Somewhat	5	23.8
      Eased Considerably	1	4.8
      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	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	5	25.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.0
      Total	20	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	57.1
      Eased Somewhat	5	23.8
      Eased Considerably	1	4.8
      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

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	1	5.9
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	47.1
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.9
      Tightened Somewhat	2	11.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	5	29.4
      Eased Somewhat	8	47.1
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.9
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	17.6
      Eased Somewhat	9	52.9
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	5.9
      Tightened Somewhat	2	11.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	23.5
      Eased Somewhat	7	41.2
      Eased Considerably	3	17.6
      Total	17	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	2	11.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	52.9
      Eased Somewhat	5	29.4
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	35.3
      Eased Somewhat	7	41.2
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	23.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	17.6
      Eased Somewhat	7	41.2
      Eased Considerably	3	17.6
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	23.5
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	4	23.5
      Total	17	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	2	11.8
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	47.1
      Eased Somewhat	5	29.4
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	11.8
      Tightened Somewhat	2	11.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	35.3
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	11.8
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	17.6
      Eased Somewhat	8	47.1
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	2	11.8
      Tightened Somewhat	2	11.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	23.5
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	3	17.6
      Total	17	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	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	52.9
      Eased Somewhat	4	23.5
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	23.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	35.3
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	5	29.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	3	17.6
      Eased Somewhat	7	41.2
      Eased Considerably	2	11.8
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	23.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	23.5
      Eased Somewhat	6	35.3
      Eased Considerably	3	17.6
      Total	17	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	1	6.7
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	53.3
      Eased Somewhat	5	33.3
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	6.7
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	46.7
      Eased Somewhat	6	40.0
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	6.7
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	8	53.3
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	6.7
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	6	40.0
      Eased Considerably	3	20.0
      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	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	4	26.7
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	53.3
      Eased Somewhat	5	33.3
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	7	46.7
      Eased Considerably	2	13.3
      Total	15	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	4	26.7
      Eased Somewhat	6	40.0
      Eased Considerably	3	20.0
      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	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   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	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	3	14.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	17.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	52.9
   Decreased Somewhat	4	23.5
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9
   Total	17	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	58.8
   Decreased Somewhat	5	29.4
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5
   Decreased Somewhat	5	31.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   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	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	72.2
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.6
   Total	18	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	77.8
   Decreased Somewhat	3	16.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
   Decreased Somewhat	3	18.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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 of commercial mortgage-backed securities and funding terms for commercial mortgage real estate investment trusts amid signs of strain in the commercial real estate market¹

The delinquency rate on commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) loans increased sharply in June. To understand the impact of the Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility (TALF) on the functioning and funding of CMBS, the first set of special questions asks about changes since mid-March in securities funding at your institution collateralized by TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS and TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS. Broadly, TALF-eligible CMBS are defined as triple-A-rated legacy CMBS that are not single-asset single-borrower deals. The second set of special questions asks about changes in price and nonprice terms of funding offered to commercial mortgage real estate investment trusts (commercial mREITs) when compared with (1) the mid-February pre-pandemic levels and (2) the mid-March levels.

Funding of TALF-eligible and TALF-ineligible non-agency commercial mortgage-backed securities

81. Since mid-March, how have the terms under which TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS are funded changed?

1. Maximum amount of funding

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	38.5
   Eased Somewhat	5	38.5
   Eased Considerably	1	7.7
   Total	13	100.0

2. Maximum maturity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	38.5
   Eased Somewhat	5	38.5
   Eased Considerably	1	7.7
   Total	13	100.0

3. Haircuts

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	4	30.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	23.1
   Eased Somewhat	5	38.5
   Eased Considerably	1	7.7
   Total	13	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	23.1
   Eased Somewhat	3	23.1
   Eased Considerably	5	38.5
   Total	13	100.0

5. Other

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

82. Since mid-March, how has demand for funding of TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS by your institution’s clients changed?

83. Since mid-March, how have liquidity and functioning in the TALF-eligible non-agency CMBS market changed?

84. Since mid-March, how have the terms under which TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS are funded changed?

1. Maximum amount of funding

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	35.7
   Eased Somewhat	5	35.7
   Eased Considerably	2	14.3
   Total	14	100.0

2. Maximum maturity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	35.7
   Eased Somewhat	5	35.7
   Eased Considerably	2	14.3
   Total	14	100.0

3. Haircuts

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	14.3
   Eased Somewhat	5	35.7
   Eased Considerably	5	35.7
   Total	14	100.0

5. Other

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

85. Since mid-March, how has demand for funding of TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS by your institution’s clients changed?

86. Since mid-March, how have liquidity and functioning in the TALF-ineligible non-agency CMBS market changed?

Funding terms for commercial mortgage real estate investment trusts

87. Since mid-February, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates over the relevant benchmark) offered to commercial mREITs—as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types—changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

88. Since mid-February, 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 commercial mREITs across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

89. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to commercial mREITs have tightened or eased since mid-February (as reflected in your responses to questions 87 and 88), 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 factor	8	61.5
      2nd most important factor	3	23.1
      3rd most important factor	2	15.4
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	25.0
      2nd most important factor	5	62.5
      3rd most important factor	1	12.5
      Total	8	100.0

   3. Adoption of more stringent market conventions—that is, collateral terms and agreements or International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) protocols

      	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. 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

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

      	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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	27.3
      2nd most important factor	4	36.4
      3rd most important factor	4	36.4
      Total	11	100.0

   7. Less aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	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 factor	0	0.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	100.0
      Total	1	100.0

   2. 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

   3. Adoption of less stringent market conventions—that is, collateral terms and agreements or ISDA protocols

      	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. 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

   5. 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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning attributed to Federal Reserve 13(3) facilities or Federal Reserve purchases of agency CMBS

      	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. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning not attributed to Federal Reserve 13(3) facilities or Federal Reserve purchases of agency CMBS

      	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. More aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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

   9. 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

90. Since mid-March, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates over the relevant benchmark) offered to commercial mREITs—as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types—changed, regardless of nonprice terms?

91. Since mid-March, 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 commercial mREITs across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

92. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to commercial mREITs have tightened or eased since mid-March (as reflected in your responses to questions 90 and 91), 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 factor	5	83.3
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	1	16.7
      Total	6	100.0

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution 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. Adoption of more stringent market conventions—that is, collateral terms and agreements or ISDA protocols

      	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. 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

   5. Diminished 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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	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

   7. Less aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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

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

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

   2. 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

   3. Adoption of less stringent market conventions—that is, collateral terms and agreements or ISDA protocols

      	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. 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

   5. Increased 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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning attributed to Federal Reserve 13(3) facilities or Federal Reserve purchases of agency CMBS

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

   7. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning not attributed to Federal Reserve 13(3) facilities or Federal Reserve purchases of agency CMBS

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

   8. More aggressive competition from other institutions

      	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

   9. 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

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