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

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

PDF

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, March 2025

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The March 2025 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 December 2024 and February 2025.1 In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions on dealers’ and their clients’ practices and activities in the repurchase agreement (repo) market for transactions collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities.

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)2

With regard to the credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types across the entire range of securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

  • Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were generally unchanged, on net, across most classes of counterparties. For trading real estate investment trusts (REITs), a small fraction of dealers reported easing of price terms (such as financing rates) over the past three months (see the exhibit "Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit"). Dealers cited more-aggressive competition from other institutions as the main reason for easing. Around one-fourth of dealers reported that the intensity of efforts by hedge funds and REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms increased somewhat, as did a small fraction of dealers for insurance companies.
  • Resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and central counterparties remained basically unchanged. Roughly four-fifths of respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices, including margin requirements and haircuts, have not affected or have minimally affected the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
  • The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged, on net, over the past three months for most counterparty types, although a small fraction of dealers indicated that the volume of such disputes with insurance companies decreased somewhat.

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

In the OTC derivatives markets, nonprice terms in master agreements, initial margin requirements, the posting of nonstandard collateral, and the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes were all reported as largely unchanged.

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

  • A small fraction of dealers reported that haircuts tightened somewhat for both average and most-favored clients in high-grade corporate bonds. A small fraction of dealers reported that maximum amounts of funding and haircuts tightened somewhat for most-favored clients in high-yield corporate bonds. On net, one-fifth of dealers indicated easing of collateral spreads over relevant benchmarks (effective financing rates) for average clients in agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), as did a small net fraction of dealers for most-favored clients. One-fifth of dealers indicated that collateral spreads eased somewhat for both average and most-favored clients in commercial mortgage-backed securities.
  • On net, about one-fourth of dealers reported increased demand for funding of equities (including through stock loans), as did one-fifth of dealers for funding of agency RMBS. Demand for funding of all other asset classes was largely unchanged (see the exhibit "Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning").
  • Across all collateral types, the demand for term funding remained basically unchanged.
  • Nearly one-fifth of dealers reported that liquidity and functioning in the non-agency RMBS market improved somewhat over the past three months, as did a small fraction of dealers for the agency RMBS market. For all other asset classes included in the survey, liquidity and market functioning remained basically unchanged.
  • The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months across all collateral types.

Special Questions on U.S. Treasury Repo
(Questions 81-88)

In this quarter’s special questions, dealers were asked about their and their clients’ practices and activities in the repo market for transactions collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities.

Dealers were asked about their use of contract terms with clients that allow margin offsets between repo and reverse repo positions, and/or cross-margining between repo positions and Treasury futures, other interest rate derivatives, and other products.3 Dealers reported the following:

  • Almost all dealers reported having clients that transact with them in both Treasury repo and reverse repo. Of these dealers, nearly two-thirds reported that most, nearly all, or all of their clients are under agreements that allow for margin offsets between these types of positions.
  • Over one-half of dealers reported having clients that transact in both Treasury repo and Treasury futures. Of these dealers, only a small fraction reported that most, nearly all, or all of their clients are under agreements that allow for cross-margining of Treasury repo with Treasury futures.
  • Nearly two-thirds of dealers reported having clients that transact in both Treasury repo and other interest rate derivatives. Of these dealers, only a small fraction reported that most, nearly all, or all of their clients are under agreements that allow for cross-margining of Treasury repo with other interest rate derivatives.
  • More than one-fifth of dealers reported having clients that transact in both Treasury repo and other products. Of these dealers, two-fifths reported that nearly all or all of their clients are under agreements that allow for cross-margining of Treasury repo with other products.
  • Nearly all dealers that reported having clients engaging in both Treasury repo and Treasury futures transactions also reported having clients engaging in both Treasury repo and other interest rate derivatives transactions. Overall, nearly two-thirds of dealers reported two types of combinations, more than one-half reported three types, and nearly one-fifth reported all four types.

In response to questions about Treasury repo trading strategies employed by hedge funds, about four-fifths of dealers reported that they have hedge fund clients who engage in Treasury repo transactions with them. The most popular types of trades by these clients are on-the-run versus off-the-run arbitrage, yield curve or duration trades, and cash–futures basis trades.

Dealers were asked to report on recent and expected future changes in the composition of their transactions across different repo market segments.

  • More than three-fourths of dealers reported that they have conducted a material number of Treasury repo transactions in the noncentrally cleared bilateral repo (NCCBR) market since 2024:Q1.
  • Of those dealers, nearly one-fourth, on net, reported that the share of their volume in NCCBR Treasury repo trades with their hedge fund clients, as a fraction of their overall Treasury repo trade volumes with them, has decreased since 2024:Q1. The NCCBR shares for other client types, including money market funds, other asset managers, broker-dealers, and others, have remained basically unchanged, on net, since 2024:Q1.
  • Dealers cited netting benefits associated with central clearing transactions as the main reason for the NCCBR share decrease.

Nearly two-thirds of dealers, on net, expect the share of their volume in Treasury repo in NCCBR to decrease over the next year. Almost all dealers expect an increase in their share of centrally cleared bilateral repo. More than four-fifths of the dealers expect an increase in their share of centrally cleared triparty repo. The share of noncentrally cleared triparty repo is expected to remain basically unchanged on net.

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

1. 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 11, 2025, and February 24, 2025. Return to text

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

3. For these product combinations, the survey questions did not distinguish between repo and reverse repo transactions. Return to text

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

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

Accessible version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

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

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

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

Accessible version

Results of the March 2025 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?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

Make Full Screen
  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

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?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
To A Considerable Extent 0 0.0
To Some Extent 3 13.6
To A Minimal Extent 11 50.0
Not At All 8 36.4
Total 22 100.0

Hedge Funds

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 2 9.1
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 81.8
Eased Somewhat 2 9.1
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
Eased Somewhat 1 4.5
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

6. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to hedge funds have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 4 and 5), what are the most important reasons for the change?

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 6 27.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 72.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  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

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?

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

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.)

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2
Eased Somewhat 2 10.5
Eased Considerably 1 5.3
Total 19 100.0

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

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

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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 33.3
      2nd Most Important 2 66.7
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 3 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 5 26.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 73.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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

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

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

Make Full Screen
  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

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.)

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Eased Somewhat 1 4.8
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

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

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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  4. Endowments
    Make Full Screen
      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?

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

Insurance Companies

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
Eased Somewhat 2 10.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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.)

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

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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        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. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 2 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

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

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

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

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?

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

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.)

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
Eased Somewhat 2 10.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 50.0
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    8. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.)

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
Eased Somewhat 2 10.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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.)

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
Eased Somewhat 2 10.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number 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?

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

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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 78.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3
    Decreased Considerably 2 10.5
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 3 15.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
    Make Full Screen
      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
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
    Decreased Somewhat 3 14.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
    Make Full Screen
      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

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 clients changed?

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Acceptable collateral
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Triggers and covenants
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  6. Other (please specify)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 1 100.0

Initial Margin

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      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

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      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
    Make Full Screen
      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

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

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

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?

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. FX
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 76.5
    Decreased Somewhat 3 17.6
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Interest rate
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  3. Equity
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 76.5
    Decreased Somewhat 2 11.8
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.9
    Total 17 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 7.7
    Increased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 76.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0
  6. Commodity
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 13.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 73.3
    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)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Interest rate
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  3. Equity
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 11.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 2 13.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 76.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.7
    Decreased Considerably 1 7.7
    Total 13 100.0
  6. Commodity
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 73.3
    Decreased Somewhat 2 13.3
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.7
    Total 15 100.0
  7. TRS referencing non-securities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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?

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

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?

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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

Funding of High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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?

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

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?

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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 68.4
      Eased Somewhat 4 21.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 68.4
      Eased Somewhat 4 21.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 2 10.5
Increased Somewhat 4 21.1
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 63.2
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 15.0
      Eased Considerably 2 10.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 75.0
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.0
      Eased Considerably 2 10.0
      Total 20 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 5.0
Increased Somewhat 4 20.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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

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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 3 15.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 81.3
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 75.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 18.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
      Eased Somewhat 2 12.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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?

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

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

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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 3 18.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 13 81.3
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 13.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 13.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased Somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 13.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 13 86.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

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

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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 6.7
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        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)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 71.4
      Eased Somewhat 3 21.4
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    3. Haircuts
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Make Full Screen
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 78.6
      Eased Somewhat 3 21.4
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
      Make Full Screen
        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

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100.0

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

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 2 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100.0

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. High-grade corporate bonds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equities
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  6. CMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0

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
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equities
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  6. CMBS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0

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.

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Free-Text Entry 1 100.0
Total 1 100.0

Special Questions

In these special questions, we ask about your institution's and your clients' practices and activities in the repurchase agreement (repo) market for transactions collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities.

Questions 81 and 82 ask about contracts with clients that allow for margin offsets across multiple positions with the same counterparty or cross-margining positions with the same counterparty between products. Questions 83 and 84 ask about the types of trades of your hedge fund clients who engage in Treasury repo or reverse repo transactions with you. Questions 85 to 87 ask about the change in the share of noncentrally cleared bilateral repo (NCCBR) since 2024:Q1. Question 88 asks about expected changes in the shares of four segments of the repo market over the next year.

U.S. Treasury Repurchase Agreements

81. Do you have clients that do the following combinations of transactions with you? Please choose all the combinations that apply.

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents
Treasury repo and reverse repo 21
Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and Treasury futures 12
Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and interest rate derivatives other than Treasury futures-for example, interest rate swaps or options 14
Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and product(s) not listed above (please specify) 5
Total 52

82. For each combination that you chose in question 81, what share of your clients in Treasury repo or reverse repo are under agreements with you that allow for margin offsets between these types of positions or cross-margining with the other product(s) listed in the combination?

  1. Treasury repo and reverse repo
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    None or nearly none 6 28.6
    A small fraction 2 9.5
    Around half 0 0.0
    Most 1 4.8
    All or nearly all 12 57.1
    Total 21 100.0
  2. Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and Treasury futures
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    None or nearly none 5 41.7
    A small fraction 5 41.7
    Around half 0 0.0
    Most 1 8.3
    All or nearly all 1 8.3
    Total 12 100.0
  3. Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and interest rate derivatives other than Treasury futures-for example, interest rate swaps or options
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    None or nearly none 7 50.0
    A small fraction 5 35.7
    Around half 0 0.0
    Most 1 7.1
    All or nearly all 1 7.1
    Total 14 100.0
  4. Treasury repo (or reverse repo) and product(s) not listed above
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    None or nearly none 2 40.0
    A small fraction 1 20.0
    Around half 0 0.0
    Most 0 0.0
    All or nearly all 2 40.0
    Total 5 100.0

83. Do you have a material number of hedge fund clients who engage in Treasury repo or reverse repo transactions with you?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 18 81.8
No 4 18.2
Total 22 100.0

84. For your hedge fund clients who engage in Treasury repo or reverse repo transactions with you, what are their main types of trades? Please select no more than three types, indicating the most popular by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most popular by selecting the radio button in the 2nd column, and so on.

Make Full Screen
Topic Most popular 2nd Most popular 3rd Most popular Total
  Number of
Respondents		 Number of
Respondents		 Number of
Respondents		  
A) On-the-run vs off-the-run arbitrage 7 3 3 13
B) Yield curve or duration trades 4 6 4 14
C) Cash-futures basis trades 4 5 3 12
D) Foreign exchange arbitrage or carry trades 0 0 2 2
E) Cross-jurisdictional or international trades other than those above 0 0 0 0
F) Cash-derivatives basis trades other than those above 0 1 0 1
G) Relative-value trades other than those above 1 2 1 4
H) Other macro trades 1 0 1 2
I) Other (please specify) 1 0 1 2
Total 18 17 15  

85. Have you conducted a material number of Treasury repo or reverse repo transactions in NCCBR since 2024: Q1?

Make Full Screen
  Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 17 77.3
No 5 22.7
Total 22 100.0

86. How did the share of your institutions volume in NCCBR Treasury repo trades (repo and reverse repo) with each of the following client types, as a fraction of your institutions overall Treasury repo trade volumes with that client type, change since 2024:Q1? ("Not applicable" means your institution has few or no clients of the specified type participating in NCCBR Treasury repo trades.)

  1. Hedge funds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Substantially 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 4 23.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 5 29.4
    Decreased Somewhat 4 23.5
    Decreased Substantially 4 23.5
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Money market funds
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Substantially 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 13.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 9 60.0
    Decreased Somewhat 4 26.7
    Decreased Substantially 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  3. Other asset managers
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Substantially 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 12.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 62.5
    Decreased Somewhat 4 25.0
    Decreased Substantially 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  4. Broker-dealers
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Substantially 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Substantially 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0
  5. Other (please specify)
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Substantially 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 2 66.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 33.3
    Decreased Substantially 0 0.0
    Total 3 100.0

87. To the extent that your institutions volume share in NCCBR for some client types has changed since 2024:Q1 (as reflected in your response to question 86), what are the most important reasons for the change?

  1. Possible reasons for an increase in the NCCBR share
    Make Full Screen
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    1) Increase in netted packages 2 0 0 2
    2) More flexible nonprice contract terms in the NCCBR market 1 0 0 1
    3) Better rates in the NCCBR market 0 0 1 1
    4) Increasing costs or difficulties in providing clients access to clearing services 0 2 0 2
    5) Other (please specify) 2 0 0 2
    Total 5 2 1  
  2. Possible reasons for a decrease in the NCCBR share
    Make Full Screen
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    1) Decrease in netted packages 0 0 0 0
    2) Netting benefits associated with central clearing transactions 6 2 0 8
    3) Better nonprice contract terms in other market segments 0 1 0 1
    4) Better rates in other market segments 0 0 1 1
    5) Decreasing costs or difficulties in providing clients access to clearing services 1 0 0 1
    6) Lower counterparty risk in other market segments 0 0 0 0
    7) Other (please specify) 2 0 0 2
    Total 9 3 1  

88. How do you expect the share of your institutions volume in Treasury repo trade (repo and reverse repo) in each of the following four repo market segments, as a fraction of your institutions overall Treasury repo trade volumes, to change over the next year? ("Not applicable" means your institution does not conduct a material number of Treasury repo trades in that repo market segment.)

  1. NCCBR
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increase substantially 0 0.0
    Increase Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remain Basically Unchanged 5 25.0
    Decrease Somewhat 11 55.0
    Decrease substantially 3 15.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Centrally cleared bilateral repo
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increase substantially 6 27.3
    Increase Somewhat 15 68.2
    Remain Basically Unchanged 1 4.5
    Decrease Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decrease substantially 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Noncentrally cleared triparty repo
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increase substantially 0 0.0
    Increase Somewhat 6 27.3
    Remain Basically Unchanged 9 40.9
    Decrease Somewhat 4 18.2
    Decrease substantially 3 13.6
    Total 22 100.0
  4. Centrally cleared triparty repo
    Make Full Screen
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increase substantially 8 36.4
    Increase Somewhat 10 45.5
    Remain Basically Unchanged 4 18.2
    Decrease Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decrease substantially 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
Last Update: March 27, 2025