1. Home
  2. Data
  3. Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

PDF

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, December 2021

Current Release RSS DDP

Release Date: December 21, 2021

Summary

The December 2021 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about participation in the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation’s (FICC) sponsored repurchase agreement (repo) services. 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 between November 9, 2021, and November 22, 2021. The core questions asked about changes between September 2021 and November 2021.1

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)2

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. For hedge funds, a small net fraction of dealers reported tightening of nonprice terms such as haircuts, maximum maturity, or covenants (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit). A small fraction of dealers indicated an increase in insurance companies’ efforts to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms.
  • Small fractions of respondents indicated that resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and central counterparties increased somewhat. However, almost all respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices have not affected, or have minimally affected, the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
  • The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for most counterparty types, although a small fraction of dealers indicated an increase in the duration of such disputes with mutual funds and exchange-traded funds.

With respect to clients’ use of financial leverage, dealers indicated little change, on net, over the past three months for most types of counterparties. A small net fraction of dealers reported a decrease in the use of leverage by hedge funds (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage).

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

  • Nonprice terms in master agreements for OTC derivatives remained largely unchanged.
  • The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained largely unchanged over the past three months for most types of contracts. A small net fraction of respondents indicated an increase in the volume of mark and collateral disputes for foreign exchange derivatives. Furthermore, one-fifth of respondents reported an increase in dispute durations for commodity derivatives, while a small net fraction of respondents reported an increase in dispute durations for interest rate derivatives.

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

  • For non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities, commercial mortgage-backed securities, and consumer asset-backed securities, between one-fifth and one-third of respondents indicated easing of funding terms, such as haircuts and collateral spreads, for both average and most-favored clients. For other asset classes, terms under which various types of securities are funded remained largely unchanged.
  • On net, one-fourth of dealers reported increased demand for funding equities. Demand for funding of other asset classes was largely unchanged (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning).
  • On net, liquidity and market functioning for all asset classes remained unchanged.
  • The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained unchanged, on net, across all collateral types.

Special Questions on Participation in the FICC’s Sponsored Repo Services
(Questions 81-87)

The special questions asked about participation by dealers and their clients in the FICC’s sponsored repo services. The FICC’s sponsored Delivery-versus-Payment (DvP) service allows a sponsored member to submit bilateral DvP repo transactions for clearing with performance guaranteed by the sponsoring member. The recently launched sponsored general collateral (GC) service allows sponsoring members to transact repo trades with their sponsored members on a GC basis in triparty markets.3 The questions asked about current usage of the sponsored DvP repo service, changes in usage of the sponsored DvP repo service during March 2020, and expectations of sponsored GC repo activity over the next several years.

With respect to current usage of the sponsored DvP repo service, dealers reported the following:

  • About three-fifths of respondents indicated that they are currently sponsoring members in the sponsored DvP repo service.
  • Almost all current sponsoring members cited greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for sponsoring members as the most important factor supporting the usage of the sponsored DvP repo service. Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for sponsored members was cited by more than three-fifths of respondents as the second most important factor, while reduction in operational risk for sponsoring members was cited as a contributing factor.
  • FICC margin and liquidity requirements for sponsoring members was cited by about one-half of total respondents as the most important factor limiting the usage of the sponsored DvP repo service. The administrative burden for new repo agreements and other membership obligations and operations costs associated with central clearing were commonly cited as the second and third most important factors, respectively.

With respect to usage of the sponsored DvP repo service during March 2020, dealers reported the following:

  • Approximately one-fourth of current sponsoring members reported that their institution’s sponsored DvP repo volume increased, on net, during March 2020.
    • Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage was cited by all respondents who reported an increase as the most important factor driving the increase. Increased financing availability and counterparty diversification benefits for sponsored members were also cited as contributing factors.
  • The remaining roughly three-fourths of current sponsoring members reported no change to their sponsored DvP repo volume during March 2020.
    • FICC margin and liquidity requirements, other membership obligations and operations costs associated with central clearing, and the administrative burden for new repo agreements were the three most cited factors limiting sponsored repo volume.
    • One-half of the respondents that reported no change indicated they had very little sponsored repo activity during March 2020.

With respect to expectations for sponsored GC repo trading activity over the next several years, dealers reported the following:

  • Among the three-fourths of respondents that reported that they expect growth in sponsored GC repo trading, about one-half expected noncentrally cleared triparty activity to be the most important source of sponsored GC repo trading activity, while about one-third expected sponsored DvP activity to be the most important source. Noncentrally cleared bilateral activity was also expected to be a contributing source.
  • The remaining one-fourth of respondents reported that they do not expect much growth in sponsored GC repo trading.

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

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

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

3. Each sponsored GC trade is required to be fully collateralized with eligible securities including U.S. Treasury securities, agency debentures, and agency MBS. Return to text

 

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

Exhibit 1: Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit. See accessible link for data.

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage. See accessible link for data.

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning. See accessible link for data.

Accessible version

 

Results of the December 2021 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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
To A Considerable Extent 1 4.3
To Some Extent 1 4.3
To A Minimal Extent 11 47.8
Not At All 10 43.5
Total 23 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 91.3
Eased Somewhat 1 4.3
Eased Considerably 1 4.3
Total 23 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 4 17.4
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 78.3
Eased Somewhat 1 4.3
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 1 50.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 2 66.7
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 1 33.3
      Total 3 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 22 95.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Decreased Somewhat 3 13.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 91.3
Decreased Somewhat 1 4.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
Eased Considerably 1 5.3
Total 19 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 5.3
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 23 100.0
Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 4.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 22 95.7
Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 23 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  2. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  3. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 22 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  4. Endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

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

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?

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

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

Investment Advisers to Separately Managed Accounts

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
Eased Considerably 1 5.0
Total 20 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 5.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 2 8.7
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Eased Somewhat 1 4.3
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 2 8.7
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Eased Somewhat 1 4.3
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 2 100.0
      Total 2 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 22 95.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 82.6
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 4.3
    Total 23 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 82.6
    Decreased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 11.1
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 82.6
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 4.8
    Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 82.6
    Decreased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 11.1
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 4.3
    Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 14.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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 derivative 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 Percentage
    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
  2. Acceptable collateral
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Triggers and covenants
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  6. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0

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 Percentage
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    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 Percentage
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.1
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.1
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

48. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to TRS referencing non-securities (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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0
    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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 23 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 15.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 5.6
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 83.3
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 6.7
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  7. TRS referencing non-securities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 15.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 2 11.1
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 77.8
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.6
    Total 18 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 11.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 13.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 2 13.3
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  7. TRS referencing non-securities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

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 Percentage
      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. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 3 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 1 4.8
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

Funding of 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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 68.4
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 68.4
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 15.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 73.7
Decreased Somewhat 2 10.5
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 2 10.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 1 5.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 1 5.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 1 5.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 1 5.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 1 5.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 5.0
Increased Somewhat 5 25.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 13 65.0
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
      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. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 75.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
Deteriorated Somewhat 1 4.8
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 75.0
      Eased Somewhat 4 25.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 68.8
      Eased Somewhat 5 31.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 75.0
      Eased Somewhat 4 25.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 68.8
      Eased Somewhat 5 31.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 6.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
Decreased Somewhat 1 6.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 11.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 5.9
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 73.3
      Eased Somewhat 4 26.7
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 100.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 73.3
      Eased Somewhat 4 26.7
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 100.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0

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

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

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?

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

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 2 12.5
Improved Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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

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 Percentage
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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.

80. Are there any other recent developments involving conditions and practices in any of the markets addressed in this survey or applicable to the counterparty types listed in this survey that you regard as particularly significant and which were not fully addressed in the prior questions? Your response will help us stay abreast of emerging issues and in choosing questions for future surveys. There is no need to reply to this question if there is nothing you wish to add.

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Free-Text Entry 4 100.0
Total 4 100.0

Special Questions

Fixed Income Clearing Corporation’s (FICC) sponsored services allow sponsored members to execute and settle repurchase agreement (repo) transactions in eligible securities on existing platforms via a sponsor. FICC’s sponsored Delivery-versus-Payment (DvP) service allows a sponsored member to submit bilateral DvP repo transactions for clearing, with performance guaranteed by a sponsoring member. In September 2021, FICC launched the sponsored general collateral (GC) service, which allows sponsoring members to transact repo trades with their sponsored members on a GC basis in triparty.

The following questions seek information on your institution’s and your clients’ participation in FICC’s sponsored repo services. Questions 81 through 83 ask about current usage of sponsored DvP repo, while questions 84 through 86 ask about usage during March 2020. Question 87 asks about sponsored GC repo.

Participation in FICC's Sponsored Repurchase Agreement Program

81. Are you currently a sponsoring member in sponsored DvP repo?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 14 60.9
No 9 39.1
Total 23 100.0

82. What are the most important factors supporting the usage of sponsored DvP repo relative to uncleared bilateral repo for eligible collateral classes? (Please select no more than three factors, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

  1. Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 13 100.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0
  2. Reduction in operational risk for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 3 75.0
    3rd Most Important 1 25.0
    Total 4 100.0
  3. Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 7 77.8
    3rd Most Important 2 22.2
    Total 9 100.0
  4. Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 1 100.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 1 100.0
  5. Counterparty diversification benefits for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 2 100.0
    Total 2 100.0
  6. More attractive price terms
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  7. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 1 50.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 1 50.0
    Total 2 100.0

83. What are the most important factors limiting the usage of sponsored DvP repo relative to uncleared bilateral repo for eligible collateral classes? (Please select no more than three factors, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

  1. FICC margin and liquidity requirements for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 12 75.0
    2nd Most Important 2 12.5
    3rd Most Important 2 12.5
    Total 16 100.0
  2. Other membership obligations and operational costs associated with central clearing
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 2 22.2
    2nd Most Important 4 44.4
    3rd Most Important 3 33.3
    Total 9 100.0
  3. FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 2 50.0
    3rd Most Important 2 50.0
    Total 4 100.0
  4. Your institution's internal risk limits
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 1 25.0
    2nd Most Important 1 25.0
    3rd Most Important 2 50.0
    Total 4 100.0
  5. Administrative burden for new repo agreements
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 5 41.7
    2nd Most Important 6 50.0
    3rd Most Important 1 8.3
    Total 12 100.0
  6. Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 2 66.7
    3rd Most Important 1 33.3
    Total 3 100.0
  7. Clients' internal risk limits
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 2 100.0
    Total 2 100.0
  8. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 3 50.0
    2nd Most Important 1 16.7
    3rd Most Important 2 33.3
    Total 6 100.0

84. On net, during March 2020, how did your institution's sponsored DvP repo volume change relative to uncleared bilateral repo volumes for eligible collateral classes?

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

85. If you answered "increased" in question 84, what were the most important factors driving the increase? (Please select no more than three factors, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

  1. Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 4 100.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 4 100.0
  2. Reduction in operational risk for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  3. Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 3 75.0
    3rd Most Important 1 25.0
    Total 4 100.0
  4. Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  5. Counterparty diversification benefits for sponsored members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 1 100.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 1 100.0
  6. More attractive price terms
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  7. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0

86. If you answered "decreased" or "remained basically unchanged" in question 84, what were the most important factors driving the decrease or no change? (Please select no more than three factors, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

  1. FICC margin and liquidity requirements for sponsoring members
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 2 66.7
    2nd Most Important 1 33.3
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 3 100.0
  2. Other membership obligations and operational costs associated with central clearing
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 1 50.0
    3rd Most Important 1 50.0
    Total 2 100.0
  3. FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 1 100.0
    Total 1 100.0
  4. Your institution's internal risk limits
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 1 100.0
    Total 1 100.0
  5. Administrative burden for new repo agreements
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 1 50.0
    2nd Most Important 1 50.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 2 100.0
  6. Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  7. Clients' internal risk limits
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 0 0.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 0 0.0
  8. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 7 100.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 7 100.0

87. Over the next several years, what do you expect to be the source of sponsored GC repo trading activity? (Please select no more than three sources, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

  1. Sponsored DvP activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 6 54.5
    2nd Most Important 4 36.4
    3rd Most Important 1 9.1
    Total 11 100.0
  2. Noncentrally cleared triparty activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 9 69.2
    2nd Most Important 3 23.1
    3rd Most Important 1 7.7
    Total 13 100.0
  3. Noncentrally cleared bilateral activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 1 11.1
    2nd Most Important 5 55.6
    3rd Most Important 3 33.3
    Total 9 100.0
  4. New repo activity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 1 14.3
    2nd Most Important 1 14.3
    3rd Most Important 5 71.4
    Total 7 100.0
  5. My institution does not expect much growth in sponsored GC repo trading
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most Important 6 100.0
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0
    Total 6 100.0
Back to Top
Last Update: December 21, 2021