Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, March 2024

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The March 2024 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 November 2023 and February 2024.¹ In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about changes in financing terms and market conditions since the beginning of 2023 for selected segments of the market for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) collateralized by office properties.

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 all types of counterparties, the vast majority of dealers reported that both price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives remained basically unchanged over the past three months (see the exhibit "Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit").
• About one-fifth of respondents indicated that they increased the resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries. Nearly all dealers reported that the resources and attention they devote to managing their concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties remained basically unchanged.
• The volume of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for all counterparty types. A small fraction of respondents indicated that the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with dealers decreased over the past three months.

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

• 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.
• A small fraction of dealers reported an increase in initial margin requirements for average clients with respect to OTC interest rate derivatives. Almost all dealers reported no changes in initial margin requirements for other types of OTC derivatives.
• About one-fifth of respondents indicated a decrease in the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to OTC equity derivatives. A similar fraction of respondents indicated a decrease in the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes relating to OTC foreign exchange derivatives. The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for other types of OTC derivatives.

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

• About one-fifth of dealers, on net, indicated an easing over the past three months of terms for collateral spreads for high-grade corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities.
• One-third of dealers indicated increased demand for funding of equities (including through stock loans) over the past three months (see the exhibit "Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning").
• One-fourth of dealers reported that liquidity and market functioning for high-grade corporate bonds improved over the past three months. A small fraction of dealers reported improved liquidity and market functioning for high-yield corporate bonds. The vast majority of dealers indicated that liquidity and market functioning for other types of securities remained basically unchanged.
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months across all collateral classes.

Special Questions on Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities Backed by Office Collateral
(Questions 81-87)

Past SCOOS responses have indicated that many dealers have tightened funding terms for CMBS since the beginning of 2023. In these special questions, dealers were asked about changes in financing terms and market conditions since the beginning of 2023 for selected segments of the market for CMBS collateralized by office properties.³ The questions were asked separately for triple-A-rated CMBS and lower-rated CMBS and for conduit and single-asset single-borrower (SASB) CMBS, thereby resulting in four segments to consider: triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS, triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS, non-triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS, and non-triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS.⁴

With respect to financing terms and market conditions for triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS and triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS, dealers reported the following:

• About two-fifths of respondents indicated that they are currently active in financing client positions in triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS. One-half of dealers reported the same for triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS.
• Three-fourths and four-fifths of the active dealers reported tightening, on net, of nonprice terms under which triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS and triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS securities, respectively, are funded.⁵ About two-thirds of the active dealers reported tightening, on net, of price terms for each of the triple-A-rated office CMBS segments.
• For each of the CMBS market segments, dealers who reported tightening of nonprice or price terms of funding were asked to provide their three most important reasons for the change. Of the dealers reporting tightening of terms of funding for triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS, two-thirds cited worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS, and one-half cited an increase in their assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral. Of the dealers reporting tightening of terms of funding for triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS, almost all cited worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS and an increase in respondents’ assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral. In addition, one-half cited their reduced willingness to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS for this market segment.
• About two-fifths of the active dealers, on net, indicated increased demand for funding for each of the triple-A-rated office CMBS segments.
• Liquidity and functioning in the triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS market remained basically unchanged, on net. About one-fifth of the active dealers, on net, reported deteriorated liquidity and functioning in the triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS market.

With respect to financing terms and market conditions for non-triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS and non-triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS, dealers reported the following:

• About two-fifths of respondents indicated that they are currently active in financing client positions in non-triple-A-rated office conduit CMBS. About one-half of dealers reported the same for non-triple-A-rated office SASB CMBS.
• Nearly all active dealers in each of these CMBS segments reported tightening, on net, of nonprice terms and the price terms under which these securities are funded.
• Of the dealers reporting tightening of the nonprice or price terms in each of these CMBS segments, almost all cited an increase in their assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS or worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS as one of the three most important reasons for the change. In each of these CMBS segments, about one-half cited less-aggressive competition from other institutions as one of the three most important reasons for the change.
• In each of the non-triple-A-rated office CMBS segments, about three-fifths of the active dealers, on net, indicated increased demand for funding.
• In each of the non-triple-A-rated office CMBS segments, about two-fifths of the active dealers, on net, reported deteriorated liquidity and functioning.

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

1. The 22 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 February 13, 2024, and February 26, 2024. The core questions asked about changes between November 2023 and February 2024. Return to text

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

3. As in the core questions on securities financing, such financing 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. Return to text

4. The conduit CMBS considered in the special questions refers to CMBS with exposure to office properties of at least one-third of the underlying loan balance of the pool. Return to text

5. As in the core questions on counterparty types, examples of nonprice terms include haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features. Financing rates are an example of price terms. Return to text

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

Accessible version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

Results of the March 2024 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	1	100.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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	21	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

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

4. Endowments

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

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

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Investment Advisers to Separately Managed Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	81.8
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.1
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

3. Trading REITs

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	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

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.1
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   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	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3
   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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	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	17	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

4. Triggers and covenants

   	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 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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

6. Other (please specify)

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

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   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	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

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	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   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	1	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   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	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	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	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	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	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9
   Total	17	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
   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	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	13.3
   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	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

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

1. FX

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

2. Interest rate

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

3. Equity

   	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

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	16.7
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      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	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	3	17.6
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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

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

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

Funding of High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      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	14	82.4
      Eased Somewhat	3	17.6
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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

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

   3. Haircuts

      	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

   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	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	4	23.5
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	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	17	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	94.1
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

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

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

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	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
      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	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	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	64.3
      Eased Somewhat	4	28.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9
      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	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	9	64.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	21.4
      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	1	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	1	100.0

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	1	7.1
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	78.6
      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	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	71.4
      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	3	21.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	50.0
      Eased Somewhat	4	28.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	1	7.1
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	71.4
      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	3	21.4
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	57.1
      Eased Somewhat	3	21.4
      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

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	1	7.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	92.3
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	69.2
      Eased Somewhat	3	23.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	69.2
      Eased Somewhat	3	23.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

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

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

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

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

Past SCOOS responses have indicated that many respondents have tightened funding terms for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) since the beginning of 2023. In these special questions, we ask about financing terms and market conditions for selected segments of the CMBS market collateralized by office properties. We ask the questions separately for triple-A-rated CMBS and lower-rated CMBS and for conduit and single-asset single-borrower (SASB) CMBS. As in questions 70 through 73, such financing 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.

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities Backed by Office Collateral

81. Is your institution currently active in financing client positions in these securities?

1. Triple-A-rated conduit CMBS with significant exposure (at least one-third of the underlying loan balance of the pool) to office properties (triple-A office conduit CMBS)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Yes	8	36.4
   No	14	63.6
   Total	22	100.0

2. Triple-A-rated SASB CMBS with exposure to office properties (triple-A office SASB CMBS)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Yes	11	50.0
   No	11	50.0
   Total	22	100.0

3. Non-triple-A-rated conduit CMBS with significant exposure (at least one-third of the underlying loan balance of the pool) to office properties (non-triple-A office conduit CMBS)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Yes	8	36.4
   No	14	63.6
   Total	22	100.0

4. Non-triple-A-rated SASB CMBS with exposure to office properties (non-triple-A office SASB CMBS)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Yes	10	45.5
   No	12	54.5
   Total	22	100.0

82. Since the beginning of 2023, how have nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) under which these securities are funded changed in response to the exposure to different CMBS types?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
   Tightened Somewhat	6	75.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	25.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	1	9.1
   Tightened Somewhat	8	72.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	18.2
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	3	37.5
   Tightened Somewhat	4	50.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	1	12.5
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	5	50.0
   Tightened Somewhat	4	40.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	1	10.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	10	100.0

83. Since the beginning of 2023, how have price terms (for example, financing rates) under which these securities are funded changed?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	1	12.5
   Tightened Somewhat	5	62.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	1	12.5
   Eased Somewhat	1	12.5
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	1	9.1
   Tightened Somewhat	7	63.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	18.2
   Eased Somewhat	1	9.1
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	4	50.0
   Tightened Somewhat	3	37.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
   Eased Somewhat	1	12.5
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Tightened Considerably	5	50.0
   Tightened Somewhat	4	40.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0
   Eased Somewhat	1	10.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	10	100.0

84. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms under which office CMBS are funded have tightened since the beginning of 2023 (as reflected in your responses to questions 82 and 83), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS
   Possible reasons for tightening:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Increase in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	3	0	0	3
   3) Reduced willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	2	0	2
   4) Worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	2	2	0	4
   5) Less-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	1	1	0	2
   6) Other (please specify)	0	0	0	0
   Total	6	5	0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS
   Possible reasons for tightening:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Increase in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	6	0	1	7
   3) Reduced willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	5	0	5
   4) Worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	3	1	4	8
   5) Less-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	2	0	2
   6) Other (please specify)	0	0	1	1
   Total	9	8	6

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS
   Possible reasons for tightening:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Increase in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	5	0	1	6
   3) Reduced willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	1	1	2
   4) Worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	2	3	1	6
   5) Less-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	3	1	4
   6) Other (please specify)	0	0	1	1
   Total	7	7	5

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS
   Possible reasons for tightening:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Increase in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	6	1	0	7
   3) Reduced willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	2	1	3
   4) Worsening in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	2	4	2	8
   5) Less-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	1	2	2	5
   6) Other (please specify)	0	0	1	1
   Total	9	9	6

85. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms under which office CMBS are funded have eased since the beginning of 2023 (as reflected in your responses to questions 82 and 83), what are the most important reasons for the change?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS
   Possible reasons for easing:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Improvement in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Decrease in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   3) Increased willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   4) Improvement in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	1	0	0	1
   5) More-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	0	0	0
   6) Other (please specify)	0	1	0	1
   Total	1	1	0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS
   Possible reasons for easing:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Improvement in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Decrease in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   3) Increased willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   4) Improvement in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	1	0	0	1
   5) More-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	0	0	0
   6) Other (please specify)	0	1	0	1
   Total	1	1	0

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS
   Possible reasons for easing:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Improvement in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Decrease in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   3) Increased willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   4) Improvement in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	1	0	0	1
   5) More-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	0	0	0
   6) Other (please specify)	0	1	0	1
   Total	1	1	0

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS
   Possible reasons for easing:

   Topic	Most Important	2nd Most Important	3rd Most Important	Total
   	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents	Number of Respondents
   1) Improvement in current or expected financial strength of the counterparties who hold these securities	0	0	0	0
   2) Decrease in your institution's assessment of default risk in the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   3) Increased willingness of your institution to take on exposure to the underlying collateral in the CMBS	0	0	0	0
   4) Improvement in market liquidity and functioning for office CMBS	1	0	0	1
   5) More-aggressive competition from other institutions providing financing in this segment	0	0	0	0
   6) Other (please specify)	0	1	0	1
   Total	1	1	0

86. Since the beginning of 2023, how has demand for funding of these securities by your institution's clients changed?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	37.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	62.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	45.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	5	45.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	9.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	62.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	37.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	6	60.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	4	40.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	10	100.0

87. Since the beginning of 2023, how have liquidity and functioning in these markets changed?

1. Triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Improved Considerably	0	0.0
   Improved Somewhat	2	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	37.5
   Deteriorated Somewhat	3	37.5
   Deteriorated Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	8	100.0

2. Triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Improved Considerably	0	0.0
   Improved Somewhat	3	27.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	27.3
   Deteriorated Somewhat	3	27.3
   Deteriorated Considerably	2	18.2
   Total	11	100.0

3. Non-triple-A office conduit CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Improved Considerably	0	0.0
   Improved Somewhat	1	12.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	37.5
   Deteriorated Somewhat	2	25.0
   Deteriorated Considerably	2	25.0
   Total	8	100.0

4. Non-triple-A office SASB CMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Improved Considerably	0	0.0
   Improved Somewhat	2	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	2	20.0
   Deteriorated Somewhat	1	10.0
   Deteriorated Considerably	5	50.0
   Total	10	100.0