Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, March 2023

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The March 2023 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 client trading of volatility products in the interest rate, foreign exchange, and credit markets. The 20 institutions participating in the survey account for most of the dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to non-dealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted between February 14, 2023, and February 27, 2023. The core questions asked about changes between November 2022 and February 2023.¹

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:

• For trading real estate investment trust (REIT) clients, around one-fifth of dealers, on net, reported that price terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives tightened over the past three months (see the exhibit “Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit”). A smaller fraction of dealers reported that nonprice terms, such as haircuts, maximum maturity, or covenants, tightened somewhat. Dealers cited deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties as the main reason for the tightening.
• For nonfinancial corporations, one-fifth of dealers reported that nonprice terms tightened somewhat since the previous survey. A smaller net fraction of dealers reported a tightening of price terms. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties was cited as the main reason for the tightening.
• Respondents indicated that resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and central counterparties remained mostly unchanged over the past three months. More than one-half of respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices have affected to at least a small degree the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
• Around one-fifth of dealers indicated a decrease in the volume of mark and collateral disputes over the past three months with nonfinancial corporate clients and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers. Around one-fifth of dealers indicated that the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with separately managed accounts decreased over the past three months.

With respect to clients’ use of financial leverage, dealers, on net, indicated that the use of leverage remained basically unchanged for all client types (see the exhibit “Use of Financial Leverage”).

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

• Initial margin requirements were reported to be mostly unchanged, on net, for all types of OTC derivatives.
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained mostly unchanged, on net, for all types of OTC derivatives.
• Nonprice terms in master agreements for OTC derivatives remained mostly unchanged.

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

• Funding terms remained mostly unchanged, on net, for all collateral classes.
• For all collateral classes, the demand for funding was mostly unchanged on net (see the exhibit “Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning”).
• One-fifth and around one-third of dealers indicated that liquidity and market functioning for non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities and consumer asset-backed securities, respectively, improved over the past three months.³
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained mostly unchanged, on net, across all collateral classes over the past three months.

Special Questions on Trading of Volatility Products
(Questions 81–95)

Special questions asked about volatility products referencing interest rates (IR), foreign exchange (FX) rates, and credit spreads.⁴ Dealers were asked about clients’ positioning in volatility products and about changes in market conditions for these products and client interest in trading them. Net long (net short) positioning means that the value of the position increases (decreases) with increased volatility.

Almost two-thirds of dealers responded that they have a material number of clients who trade IR volatility products. With respect to IR volatility products, respondents indicated the following:

• The liquidity and functioning of the market for IR volatility products remained basically unchanged, on net, relative to January 2021.
• More than one-half of respondents, on net, reported that their clients’ interest in trading IR volatility products increased relative to January 2021. Increased desire to hedge volatility and increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk were cited as the main reasons for this increase in client trading interest.
• Dealers were asked about the current net positioning of their clients with respect to IR volatility. For insurance companies, nonfinancial corporations, commercial banks, and the combined category of pension plans, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, net fractions of around three-fourths, two-thirds, two-fifths, and one-fourth of respondents, respectively, indicated either that most clients are net long or that more clients are net long than net short. For hedge funds, one-fourth of respondents, on net, indicated either that most clients are net short or that more clients are net short than net long.

Almost two-thirds of dealers responded that they have a material number of clients who trade FX volatility products. With respect to FX volatility products, respondents indicated the following:

• Almost one-half of respondents reported that the liquidity and functioning of the market for FX volatility products improved relative to January 2021.
• Over one-half of respondents, on net, reported that their clients’ interest in trading FX volatility products increased relative to January 2021. Increased desire to hedge volatility, increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk, and improvement in liquidity conditions for trading these products were cited as the main reasons for this increase in client trading interest.
• For hedge funds, asset managers, and insurance companies, net fractions of one-half, around two-fifths, and around one-third of respondents, respectively, indicated either that most clients are net long or that more clients are net long than net short. For nonfinancial corporations, around one-third of respondents, on net, indicated either that most clients are net short or that more clients are net short than net long.

Nearly one-third of dealers responded that they have a material number of clients who trade credit spread volatility products. With respect to credit spread volatility products, respondents indicated the following:

• One-half of respondents reported that the liquidity and functioning of the market for credit spread volatility products improved relative to January 2021.
• Nearly all respondents reported that their clients’ interest in trading credit spread volatility products increased relative to January 2021. Increased desire to hedge volatility was cited as the main reason for this increase in client trading interest, followed by improvement in liquidity conditions for trading these products and increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk.
• For nonfinancial corporations, two-thirds of respondents indicated that more clients are net short than net long. The other types of clients are mostly net neutral.

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

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

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

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

4. Volatility products include, for example, options on cash bonds and IR futures, IR swaptions, and IR caps and floors for IR volatility, FX options and swaptions as well as cross-currency options and swaptions for FX rate volatility, and credit default swaptions and index tranches for credit spread volatility. Return to text

 

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

Results of the March 2023 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

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

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

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

Hedge Funds

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.)

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

   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	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   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?

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	18	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. ETFs

   	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

3. Pension plans

   	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

4. Endowments

   	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

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

Insurance Companies

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

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.)

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	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

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

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

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

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.)

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.)

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

   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	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   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

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

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

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

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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.)

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	3	75.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   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	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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

      	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

   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	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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

2. Hedge funds

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

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9
   Total	17	100.0

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

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

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Hedge funds

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

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9
   Total	17	100.0

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

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

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	78.9
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	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	19	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

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

4. Triggers and covenants

   	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

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

   	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

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	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   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	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	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	1	5.9
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.9
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   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	16	88.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	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	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

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	12	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	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	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	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	14	93.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.7
   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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	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	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

Nonstandard Collateral

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

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

2. Interest rate

   	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

3. Equity

   	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

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	91.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	8.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	78.6
   Decreased Somewhat	2	14.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	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	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	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	2	11.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. Interest rate

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

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	18.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	91.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	8.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	7.1
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	71.4
   Decreased Somewhat	2	14.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	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	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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?

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

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

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	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	17	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	17.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	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?

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

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

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	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	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	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?

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	16	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	14	87.5
      Eased Somewhat	2	12.5
      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	16	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	16	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	14	87.5
      Eased Somewhat	2	12.5
      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

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

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

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

Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	64.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	21.4
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	21.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	50.0
      Eased Somewhat	4	28.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	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	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	64.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	21.4
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

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

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

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

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

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	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	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	93.3
      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	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      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	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
      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	1	100.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	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	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	66.7
      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	2	13.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
      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	1	100.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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?

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

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

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	92.3
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	61.5
      Eased Somewhat	3	23.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	3	23.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	6	46.2
      Eased Somewhat	4	30.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	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	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	61.5
      Eased Somewhat	3	23.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	15.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	53.8
      Eased Somewhat	4	30.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	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?

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

   	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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	84.6
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	7.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	84.6
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	16.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	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	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

   	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. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	15.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	76.9
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

6. CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	7.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	76.9
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	16.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	8.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	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.

Special Questions

Market participants use various instruments to hedge against or gain exposure to volatility risk--for example, options on cash bonds and interest rate (IR) futures, IR swaptions, and IR caps and floors for IR volatility, foreign exchange (FX) options and swaptions as well as cross-currency options and swaptions for FX rate volatility, and credit default swaptions and index tranches for credit spread volatility. In these special questions, we ask about the positioning of different classes of clients, changes in market conditions and client interest in trading volatility products with respect to IR (questions 81 through 85), FX rate (questions 86 through 90), and credit spread (questions 91 through 95) volatility. Net long positioning means that the value of the portfolio increases with volatility.

Client Trading of Volatility Products in the Interest Rate, Foreign Exchange, and Credit Markets

81. Do you have a material number of clients who trade IR volatility products, such as options on cash bonds and IR futures, IR swaptions, and IR caps and floors?

82. What is the current net positioning of your clients of each type with respect to IR volatility?

1. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	8.3
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	1	8.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	41.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	4	33.3
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	8.3
   Total	12	100.0

2. Asset managers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	25.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	41.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	25.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	8.3
   Total	12	100.0

3. Pension plans, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	5	41.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	41.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	2	16.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

4. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	5	45.5
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	27.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	27.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	0	0.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

5. Commercial banks

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	2	16.7
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	5	41.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	25.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	8.3
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	8.3
   Total	12	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	4	36.4
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	27.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	36.4
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	0	0.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

83. Relative to January 2021, how has liquidity and functioning of the market for IR volatility products changed?

84. Relative to January 2021, how has your clients interest in trading IR volatility products changed?

85. To the extent that your clients interest in trading IR volatility products has increased or decreased relative to January 2021 (as reflected in your response to question 84), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for increase in client interest
   1. Increased desire to hedge volatility

      	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

   2. Increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk

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

   3. Eased terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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. Expansion in scope of clearing-eligible products

      	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. Improvement in liquidity conditions for trading these products

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

   6. 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 decrease in client interest
   1. Decreased desire to hedge volatility

      	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. Decreased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk

      	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

   3. Tightened terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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. Lack of access to clearing services

      	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. Deterioration in liquidity conditions for trading these products

      	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. 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. Do you have a material number of clients who trade FX volatility products, such as FX options and swaptions as well as cross-currency options and swaptions?

87. What is the current net positioning of your clients of each type with respect to FX volatility?

1. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	3	25.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	33.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	33.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	8.3
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

2. Asset managers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	3	25.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	25.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	41.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	0	0.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	8.3
   Total	12	100.0

3. Pension plans, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	9.1
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	18.2
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	45.5
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	2	18.2
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	9.1
   Total	11	100.0

4. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	3	30.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	20.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	30.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	10.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	10.0
   Total	10	100.0

5. Commercial banks

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	8.3
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	16.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	33.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	25.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	2	16.7
   Total	12	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	20.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	30.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	30.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	2	20.0
   Total	10	100.0

88. Relative to January 2021, how has liquidity and functioning of the market for FX volatility products changed?

89. Relative to January 2021, how has your clients interest in trading FX volatility products changed?

90. To the extent that your clients interest in trading FX volatility products has increased or decreased relative to January 2021 (as reflected in your response to question 89), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for increase in client interest
   1. Increased desire to hedge volatility

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Most Important	5	71.4
      2nd Most Important	2	28.6
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	7	100.0

   2. Increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Most Important	2	40.0
      2nd Most Important	3	60.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   3. Eased terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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. Expansion in scope of clearing-eligible products

      	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. Improvement in liquidity conditions for trading these products

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

   6. Other (please specify)

      	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

2. Possible reasons for decrease in client interest
   1. Decreased desire to hedge volatility

      	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. Decreased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk

      	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

   3. Tightened terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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. Lack of access to clearing services

      	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. Deterioration in liquidity conditions for trading these products

      	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. 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

91. Do you have a material number of clients who trade credit spread volatility products, such as credit default swaptions and index tranches?

92. What is the current net positioning of your clients of each type with respect to credit spread volatility?

1. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	33.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	2	33.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	16.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	16.7
   Total	6	100.0

2. Asset managers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	16.7
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	1	16.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	1	16.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	50.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	6	100.0

3. Pension plans, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	16.7
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	0	0.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	50.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	16.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	16.7
   Total	6	100.0

4. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	33.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	50.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	16.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	6	100.0

5. Commercial banks

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	1	25.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	2	50.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	25.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	4	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Most Clients Are Net Long	0	0.0
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	0	0.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	1	33.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	2	66.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Total	3	100.0

93. Relative to January 2021, how has liquidity and functioning of the market for credit spread volatility products changed?

94. Relative to January 2021, how has your clients interest in trading credit spread volatility products changed?

95. To the extent that your clients interest in trading credit spread volatility products has increased or decreased relative to January 2021 (as reflected in your response to question 94), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for increase in client interest
   1. Increased desire to hedge volatility

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

   2. Increased willingness of clients to take on volatility risk

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

   3. Eased terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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

   4. Expansion in scope of clearing-eligible products

      	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. Improvement in liquidity conditions for trading these products

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

   6. 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 decrease in client interest
   1. Decreased desire to hedge volatility

      	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. Decreased willingness of clients to take on volatility 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. Tightened terms of financing you provide to your clients

      	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. Lack of access to clearing services

      	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. Deterioration in liquidity conditions for trading these products

      	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. 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