Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, December 2023

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The December 2023 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (SCOOS) collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets between mid-August 2023 and mid-November 2023. ¹ In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about changes in participation in the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation's (FICC) sponsored repurchase agreement (repo) services since the fourth quarter of 2021.

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 nonfinancial corporations, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments, small fractions of dealers reported that they tightened nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives. A similar small fraction of dealers reported that they tightened price terms for nonfinancial corporations. Price and nonprice terms for all other counterparty types were generally unchanged over the past three months (see the exhibit "Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit"). A small fraction of dealers indicated an increase in hedge funds' and insurance companies' efforts to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms.
• A small fraction of respondents indicated that they increased the resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers. Almost all respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices have had either minimal or no effect on the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
• The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for all counterparty types.

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, nearly all dealers reported that the use of financial leverage remained basically unchanged over the past three months for all types of counterparties (see the exhibit "Use of Financial Leverage").

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

• All dealers reported no changes in nonprice terms in master agreements.
• Nearly all dealers reported no changes in initial margin requirements for all types of OTC derivatives.
• The volume of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for all types of OTC derivatives. One-fifth of respondents indicated an increase in the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes for commodity derivatives.

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

• Nearly all dealers indicated that securities funding terms remained largely unchanged over the past three months for all types of securities collateral.
• The vast majority of dealers reported that demand for funding remained basically unchanged for all types of securities collateral (see the exhibit "Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning"). One-fifth of dealers reported that demand for term funding of consumer asset-backed securities increased, while a smaller fraction reported that demand for term funding of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities increased.
• Nearly all dealers indicated that liquidity and market functioning for all types of securities remained basically unchanged over the past three months.
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained unchanged, on net, across all collateral types.

Special Questions on Changes in Usage of the FICC's Sponsored Repo Programs since 2021:Q4
(Questions 81-93)

The FICC's sponsored services allow sponsored members to execute and settle repo transactions in eligible securities on existing platforms via a sponsor. The 2021:Q4 SCOOS special questions first asked about usage of the sponsored Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) and sponsored general collateral (GC) repo services. Since then, sponsored-service volumes have grown substantially and are at or near peak levels. In the special questions, dealers were asked about changes in their institution's and their clients' participation in the FICC's sponsored repo services since 2021:Q4 and expectations of sponsored repo activity over the next year. In addition, dealers were asked to rate the importance of various factors in their decision on whether to participate in sponsored DVP and sponsored GC repo services.

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

• About three-fourths of respondents reported that their institution is currently active in sponsored DVP, an increase from the three-fifths of respondents who were active in sponsored DVP in 2021:Q4.
• Nearly all institutions currently active in sponsored DVP reported that the total volume of their sponsored DVP repo trades with hedge fund clients, as a fraction of their overall repo volumes with hedge fund clients, increased since 2021:Q4. Two-thirds of active institutions reported an increase in sponsored DVP repo fractions with money market fund and other asset manager clients, while the fraction with broker-dealer clients remained basically unchanged.
• All institutions that reported an increase in sponsored DVP repo volume since 2021:Q4 cited "greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage" and "increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for clients" as important factors for the increase. Meanwhile, all institutions that reported no change in sponsored DVP repo volume cited "administrative burden for new repo agreements," "FICC margin and liquidity requirements," and "other operational costs associated with central clearing" as very important factors for the lack of increase. These factors were also the three most important factors cited in 2021:Q4 for limiting usage of sponsored DVP.
• Among the institutions active in sponsored DVP, one-half of respondents reported that they are equally likely to collect or deliver margin to their cash-lending sponsored counterparties, while one-fourth reported they generally neither collect nor deliver margin to such counterparties. For cash-borrowing sponsored counterparties, about one-fifth of respondents reported they generally collect margin, about one-third reported they are equally likely to collect or deliver margin, and about one-fifth reported they generally neither collect nor deliver margin.
• Of the approximately one-fourth of respondents who are not currently active in sponsored DVP, "lack of client interest in the sponsored DVP service" and "lack of anticipated benefits for your institution" were most frequently cited as very important factors in their decision not to participate.

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

• About two-fifths of respondents reported that their institution is currently active in sponsored GC.
• Among the institutions currently active in sponsored GC, three-fourths reported that the total volume of their sponsored GC repo trades with money market fund clients, as a fraction of their overall repo volumes with money market fund clients, increased since 2021:Q4, while one-half reported an increase in the sponsored GC repo fraction with other asset manager clients. In contrast, the sponsored GC repo fraction with hedge fund and broker-dealer clients remained basically unchanged.
• All or nearly all institutions that reported an increase in sponsored GC repo volume since 2021:Q4 cited "greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage," "operational efficiencies from the triparty platform," and "increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for clients" as important factors for the increase.
• In contrast, all institutions that reported no change in sponsored GC repo volume cited "onboarding complexities associated with the sponsored GC repo service" and "administrative burden for new repo agreements" as very important factors. Nearly all of the approximately three-fifths of respondents who are not currently active in sponsored GC also cited these factors as important reasons in their decision not to participate.

With respect to expected usage of the sponsored DVP repo service over the next year, dealers reported the following:

• Two-thirds of respondents indicated that they expect their institution's volume in total sponsored DVP repo trades to increase. All or nearly all such respondents cited "preparation for potential regulatory changes," "greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage," and "increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for clients" as important factors for the expected increase in sponsored DVP repo volume.
• The remaining one-third of respondents all expected their institution's sponsored DVP repo volume to remain basically unchanged over the next year.

With respect to expected usage of the sponsored GC repo service over the next year, dealers reported the following:

• Slightly over one-half of respondents indicated that they expect their institution's volume in total sponsored GC repo trades to increase. All or nearly all such respondents cited "preparation by your institution for potential regulatory changes" and "greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage" as important factors for the expected increase in sponsored GC repo volume, similar to factors cited by those expecting an increase in usage of sponsored DVP.
• The remaining respondents all expect their institution's sponsored GC repo volume to remain basically unchanged over the next year. "FICC margin and liquidity requirements" and "limited demand for the GC repo service from clients" were cited most often as very important factors for the expectation of unchanged volume.

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

1. The 21 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted between November 7, 2023, and November 20, 2023. The core questions asked about changes between mid-August 2023 and mid-November 2023. Return to text

2. Question 80, not discussed here, was optional and allowed respondents to provide additional comments. 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 December 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	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	0	0.0

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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	1	100.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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	94.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

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

4. Endowments

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

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Most Important	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	1	100.0
      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	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

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	1	4.8
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

2. Hedge funds

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

3. Trading REITs

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   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	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

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	1	4.8
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

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	17	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

   	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. 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	16	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

4. Triggers and covenants

   	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

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	17	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

6. Other (please specify)

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

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	12	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	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	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	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

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	1	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. Interest rate

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

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   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	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

6. Commodity

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

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

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

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	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

2. Interest rate

   	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

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   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	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	100.0
      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	2	11.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	77.8
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.1
      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	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      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	2	11.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
      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

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	2	11.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      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	2	11.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	100.0
      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	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

      	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. 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	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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

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	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	100.0
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      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	16	94.1
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	100.0
      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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      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

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	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	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
      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	11	73.3
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      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	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
      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	3	20.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	66.7
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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	2	12.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
      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	2	12.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	4	25.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5
      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	2	12.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
      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	2	12.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	12.5
      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	4	25.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5
      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

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	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	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.1
      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	10	71.4
      Eased Somewhat	2	14.3
      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	13	92.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	78.6
      Eased Somewhat	2	14.3
      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	10	71.4
      Eased Somewhat	2	14.3
      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

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	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	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	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	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	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

6. CMBS

   	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

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	92.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	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

The Fixed Income Clearing Corporation's (FICC) sponsored services allow sponsored members to execute and settle repurchase agreement (repo) transactions in eligible securities on existing platforms via a sponsor. The 2021:Q4 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey special questions asked about usage of the sponsored Delivery-versus-Payment (DVP) repo service as well as the sponsored general collateral (GC) repo service. Since then, sponsored-service volumes have grown substantially and are at or near peak levels. The following questions seek information on changes in your institution's and your clients' participation in the FICC's sponsored repo services since 2021:Q4. Questions 81 through 87 ask about usage of the sponsored DVP repo service, while questions 88 through 93 ask about usage of the sponsored GC repo service.

Changes in Usage of the Fixed Income Clearing Corporation's Sponsored Repurchase Agreement Programs since 2021:Q4

81. Is your institution currently active in the sponsored DVP repo service?

82. If your institution is not currently active in the sponsored DVP repo service (as reflected in your response to question 81), how important has each of the following factors been in your decision to not participate? Rate each factor using the following scale: 1 = very important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = not important, or N/A = not applicable.

83. How did the share of your institution's volume in total sponsored DVP repo trades (repo and reverse repo) with each of the following client types, as a fraction of your institution's overall repo volumes for eligible collateral classes with that client type, change since 2021:Q4? Please use the following scale: 1 = increased substantially; 2 = increased somewhat; 3 = remained basically unchanged; 4 = decreased somewhat; 5 = decreased substantially; or N/A = not applicable-that is, your institution has few or no clients of the specified type participating in the sponsored DVP repo program.

1. Money market funds (MMFs)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	2	18.2
   Increased Somewhat	5	45.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	4	36.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	4	28.6
   Increased Somewhat	9	64.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	1	7.1
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

3. Other asset managers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	1	11.1
   Increased Somewhat	5	55.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	33.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	9	100.0

4. Broker-dealers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	4	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	5	100.0

5. Other institutional investors (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	100.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	1	100.0

84. To the extent that your institution's volume share in total sponsored DVP repo trades with clients has changed since 2021:Q4 (as reflected in your response to question 83), how important has each of the following factors been for the change?

1. Possible factors for an increase in sponsored DVP repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for your institution	11	2	0	13
   2) Reduction in operational risk for your institution	1	3	5	9
   3) Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for your clients	4	6	0	10
   4) Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for your clients	1	1	7	9
   5) Counterparty diversification benefits for your clients	1	2	8	11
   6) Increased level of comfort by your clients for using the service	1	6	5	12
   7) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	19	20	25

2. Possible factors for a decrease or no change in sponsored DVP repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) FICC margin and liquidity requirements for your institution	3	0	0	3
   2) Other operational costs associated with central clearing	3	0	0	3
   3) Ongoing membership obligations	1	1	1	3
   4) FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity	1	2	0	3
   5) Your institutions internal risk limits	2	1	0	3
   6) Administrative burden for new repo agreements	4	0	0	4
   7) Differences in haircuts for clients relative to noncentrally cleared bilateral repo	2	1	0	3
   8) Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies	0	2	1	3
   9) Clients internal risk limits	1	2	1	4
   10) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	17	9	3

85. For sponsored DVP accounts, how often do you collect or deliver margin to your sponsored counterparties?

1. Margin collection from cash-lending sponsored counterparties

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Almost always collect margin	1	8.3
   Generally collect margin	0	0.0
   Equally likely to collect or deliver margin	6	50.0
   Generally deliver margin	2	16.7
   Almost always deliver margin	0	0.0
   Generally neither collect nor deliver margin	3	25.0
   Total	12	100.0

2. Margin collection from cash-borrowing sponsored counterparties

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Almost always collect margin	2	14.3
   Generally collect margin	3	21.4
   Equally likely to collect or deliver margin	5	35.7
   Generally deliver margin	1	7.1
   Almost always deliver margin	0	0.0
   Generally neither collect nor deliver margin	3	21.4
   Total	14	100.0

86. How do you expect the share of your institutions volume in total sponsored DVP repo trades (repo and reverse repo) for all client types, as a fraction of your institution's overall repo volumes for eligible collateral classes, to change over the next year?

87. To the extent that you expect your institution's volume share in total sponsored DVP repo trades to change over the next year (as reflected in your response to question 86), how important is each of the following factors for the change?

1. Possible factors for an increase in sponsored DVP repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Preparation by your institution for potential regulatory changes	7	6	1	14
   2) Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for your institution	10	4	0	14
   3) Reduction in operational risk for your institution	1	5	4	10
   4) Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for your clients	4	8	0	12
   5) Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for your clients	1	3	6	10
   6) Counterparty diversification benefits for your clients	1	5	6	12
   7) Increased level of comfort by your clients for using the service	1	10	3	14
   8) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	25	41	20

2. Possible factors for a decrease or no change in sponsored DVP repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) FICC margin and liquidity requirements for your institution	1	0	0	1
   2) Other operational costs associated with central clearing	0	1	0	1
   3) Ongoing membership obligations	0	0	1	1
   4) FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity	0	0	1	1
   5) Your institutions internal risk limits	0	1	0	1
   6) Administrative burden for new repo agreements	0	0	1	1
   7) Differences in haircuts for clients relative to noncentrally cleared bilateral repo	1	0	0	1
   8) Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies	0	0	0	0
   9) Clients internal risk limits	0	0	1	1
   10) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	2	2	4

88. Is your institution currently active in the sponsored GC repo service?

89. If your institution is not currently active in the sponsored GC repo service (as reflected in your response to question 88), how important has each of the following factors been in your decision to not participate? Rate each factor using the following scale: 1 = very important, 2 = somewhat important, 3 = not important, or N/A = not applicable.

90. How did the share of your institutions volume in total sponsored GC repo trades (repo and reverse repo) with each of the following client types, as a fraction of your institution's overall repo volumes for eligible collateral classes with that client type, change since 2021:Q4? Please use the following scale: 1 = increased substantially; 2 = increased somewhat; 3 = remained basically unchanged; 4 = decreased somewhat; 5 = decreased substantially; or N/A = not applicable-that is, your institution has few or no clients of the specified type participating in the sponsored GC repo program.

1. MMFs

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	3	37.5
   Increased Somewhat	3	37.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	25.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	75.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	4	100.0

3. Other asset managers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	50.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	4	100.0

4. Broker-dealers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	2	100.0

5. Other institutional investors (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Substantially	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Substantially	0	0.0
   Total	0	0.0

91. To the extent that your institutions volume share in total sponsored GC repo trades with clients has changed since 2021:Q4 (as reflected in your response to question 90), how important has each of the following factors been for the change?

1. Possible factors for an increase in sponsored GC repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for your institution	4	2	0	6
   2) Reduction in operational risk for your institution	1	1	3	5
   3) Operational efficiencies from the triparty platform (for example, collateral and settlement management)	2	3	1	6
   4) Greater demand for term transactions or borrowing against agency collateral	0	2	2	4
   5) Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for your clients	2	3	0	5
   6) Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for your clients	1	0	4	5
   7) Counterparty diversification benefits for your clients	1	0	4	5
   8) Increased level of comfort by your clients for using the service	1	3	2	6
   9) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	12	14	16

2. Possible factors for a decrease or no change in sponsored GC repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Onboarding complexities associated with the sponsored GC repo service	3	0	0	3
   2) FICC margin and liquidity requirements for your institution	2	1	0	3
   3) Other operational costs associated with central clearing	1	1	1	3
   4) Ongoing membership obligations	1	0	2	3
   5) FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity	1	0	1	2
   6) Your institutions internal risk limits	1	0	1	2
   7) Administrative burden for new repo agreements	3	0	0	3
   8) Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies	1	0	1	2
   9) Clients internal risk limits	1	0	1	2
   10) Limited demand for the GC repo service from clients	0	2	0	2
   11) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	14	4	7

92. How do you expect the share of your institutions volume in total sponsored GC repo trades (repo and reverse repo) for all client types, as a fraction of your institutions overall repo volumes for eligible collateral classes, to change over the next year?

93. To the extent that you expect your institutions volume share in total sponsored GC repo trades to change over the next year (as reflected in your response to question 92), how important is each of the following factors for the change?

1. Possible factors for an increase in sponsored GC repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Preparation by your institution for potential regulatory changes	7	2	1	10
   2) Greater balance sheet efficiency and reduction in capital usage for your institution	8	2	0	10
   3) Reduction in operational risk for your institution	1	2	4	7
   4) Operational efficiencies from the triparty platform (for example, collateral and settlement management)	2	5	1	8
   5) Greater demand for term transactions or borrowing against agency collateral	1	4	4	9
   6) Increased financing availability or access to greater market liquidity for your clients	3	5	1	9
   7) Better risk management or lower due diligence costs for your clients	1	1	6	8
   8) Counterparty diversification benefits for your clients	1	2	6	9
   9) Increased level of comfort by your clients for using the service	2	6	2	10
   10) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	26	29	25

2. Possible factors for a decrease or no change in sponsored GC repo volume

   Topic	Very Important	Somewhat Important	Not Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Onboarding complexities associated with the sponsored GC repo service	1	0	2	3
   2) FICC margin and liquidity requirements for your institution	2	0	1	3
   3) Other operational costs associated with central clearing	1	1	1	3
   4) Ongoing membership obligations	0	1	2	3
   5) FICC-imposed limits on sponsored repo activity	1	0	2	3
   6) Your institutions internal risk limits	1	1	1	3
   7) Administrative burden for new repo agreements	1	0	2	3
   8) Repo counterparty limits for clients set by credit rating agencies	1	0	1	2
   9) Clients internal risk limits	1	0	2	3
   10) Limited demand for the GC repo service from clients	2	0	1	3
   11) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	11	3	15