Current Release PDF  

Summary

The June 2017 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about OTC derivatives that are not centrally cleared (uncleared swaps) and are affected by new margin rules. The 23 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 May 9, 2017, and May 22, 2017. The core questions asked about changes between March 2017 and May 2017.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

Responses to the core questions in the June survey overall suggested an increased supply of and demand for dealer facilitation in OTC derivatives and securities financing markets. 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:

• About one-fifth of respondents reported an easing in price and nonprice terms for their hedge fund clients. Among the dealers that indicated easing of terms, more aggressive competition from other institutions was cited as the most important reason, followed by improvement in general market liquidity and functioning. Almost one-third of dealers noted an increase in the intensity of efforts by hedge fund clients to negotiate more favorable terms. Price and nonprice terms were basically unchanged for all other classes of counterparties.
• A small fraction of dealers reported an increase in the volume of mark and collateral disputes with dealers and other financial intermediaries.

With respect to the use of financial leverage, on net, dealers indicated little change over the past three months for all classes of counterparties.

With regard to OTC derivatives markets, dealers reported the following:

• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged, on net, for average and most-favored clients.
• Small net fractions of dealers responded that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes have increased in OTC derivatives, especially in foreign exchange and interest rate contracts.

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

• One-fifth, two-fifths, and one-fourth of dealers noted a decrease over the past three months in financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmarks) for average and preferred clients in agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), non-agency RMBS, and commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), respectively. One-fifth of dealers responded that the financing rates for average clients in equities have decreased. Smaller net fractions of dealers also reported that financing rates have decreased for high-yield corporate bonds and consumer asset-backed securities.
• One-third and one-fifth of respondents reported that haircuts have decreased for securities financing transactions collateralized by non-agency RMBS and CMBS, respectively. Small net fractions of dealers noted increases in maximum amounts of funding available for equities and non-agency RMBS, as well as increases in maximum maturities allowed for agency RMBS.
• Nearly one-half of dealers reported an increase in demand for funding for equities, while one-fourth reported a decrease in demand for funding for CMBS. A smaller fraction noted an increase in demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days for high-yield corporate bonds.
• Two-fifths of dealers responded that the liquidity and market functioning for non-agency RMBS have improved over the past three months. One-fifth, on net, reported such improvements in markets for high-yield corporate bonds and CMBS.

Special Questions on Uncleared Swaps
(Questions 81–92)

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires financial regulators to establish new minimum margin requirements for uncleared swaps. In 2015, the U.S. prudential regulators and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission adopted final rules that began to be implemented in September 2016.³ Under the new rules, parties involved in uncleared swap transactions must exchange initial margin (IM) when a trade is established and provide variation margin (VM) to each other on a daily basis over the life of the derivatives contract.⁴

In the special questions of the survey this quarter, dealers were queried about the overall use and pricing of uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules and their experiences in adopting the new VM requirement. The next sections summarize the responses from roughly four-fifths of dealers who indicated that they make markets in uncleared swaps and have thus responded to the special questions.

With respect to how the overall use and pricing of uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules have changed since September 2016, responses to the special questions showed the following:

• A small fraction of survey respondents indicated that their clients’ transaction volumes in uncleared swaps have decreased somewhat.
• One-fifth of dealers responded that their own transaction volume in uncleared swaps has decreased somewhat.
• Dealers reported no change in the prices that they quote to their clients in uncleared swaps.

With respect to dealers’ experiences in adopting the new VM requirement, responses to the special questions revealed the following:

• A net fraction of about one-fifth of respondents reported that, within the transactions that are affected by the new rules, the fraction of their clients’ uncleared swap transactions that are collateralized by VM has increased since September 2016. A majority of those that indicated an increase reported a 0 to 25 percentage point change, as measured by gross notional amount outstanding.
• When asked to identify which types of clients they are relatively less likely to be exchanging daily VM with, one-fifth of dealers pointed to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, endowments, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers.⁵ The most cited reason was that these clients have not yet established or updated necessary credit support annexes to cover daily VM, followed by the lack of segregation arrangements in place. When asked about the type of VM agreement used among clients that already have the necessary agreements and documentation, three-fourths of respondents indicated that between 0 and 25 percent of such clients use the ISDA [International Swaps and Derivatives Association] 2016 Variation Margin Protocol.
• Two-fifths and one-fifth of dealers responded that they are less likely to exchange daily VM for foreign exchange derivatives (excluding physically settled foreign exchange forwards and swaps) and commodity derivatives, respectively, relative to other types of uncleared swaps. Dealers overall pointed to the lack of operational readiness as the most important reason.

With respect to the mark and collateral disputes on VM, respondents indicated the following:

• Two-fifths of dealers reported that the volume of mark and collateral disputes on VM has increased somewhat since September 2016.
• Three-fifths of dealers responded that, on average, it takes more than two days but less than a week to resolve a mark and collateral dispute on VM. One-third indicated two days or fewer.

This document was prepared by Yesol Huh, 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 Statistics Function and the Markets Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

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

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

3. The term "prudential regulators" refers to the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Return to text

4. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System; Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Farm Credit Administration; and Federal Housing Finance Agency (2015), "Margin and Capital Requirements for Covered Swap Entities," final rule (Docket No. R-1415), Federal Register, vol. 80 (November 30), pp. 74839–74914, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/11/30/2015-28671/margin-and-capital-requirements-for-covered-swap-entities; Commodity Futures Trading Commission (2016), "Margin Requirements for Uncleared Swaps for Swap Dealers and Major Swap Participants," final rule and interim final rule, Federal Register, vol. 81 (January 6), pp. 635–709, http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/FederalRegister/FinalRules/2015-32320. Return to text

5. Two-fifths of respondents chose "Other," but their text responses generally indicated nonfinancial corporations that are not subject to the new margin requirements. Return to text

 

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

 

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

 

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

 

Accessible version

 

Results of the June 2017 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

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

 

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	4.3%
Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	8.7%
Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a considerable extent	0	0.0%
To some extent	3	13.0%
To a minimal extent	8	34.8%
Not at all	12	52.2%
Total	23	100.0%

Hedge Funds

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	78.3%
Eased somewhat	4	17.4%
Eased considerably	1	4.3%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	82.6%
Eased somewhat	4	17.4%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	1	4.3%
Increased somewhat	6	26.1%
Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	78.3%
Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	8.7%
Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	5	21.7%
Remained basically unchanged	18	78.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	16	84.2%
Eased somewhat	1	5.3%
Eased considerably	1	5.3%
Total	19	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	17	89.5%
Eased somewhat	1	5.3%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	1	5.3%
Increased somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	17	89.5%
Decreased somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	18	94.7%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	1	4.3%
Total	23	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Eased somewhat	1	4.3%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	23	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

21. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution, how has the use of financial leverage by each of the following types of clients changed over the past three months?

1. Mutual funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

   
   
2. ETFs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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. Pension plans

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

   
   
4. Endowments

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

   
   

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	8.7%
Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Eased somewhat	1	4.5%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	1	4.5%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

25. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to insurance companies have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 23 and 24) what are the most important reasons for the change?

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	1	4.8%
Remained basically unchanged	18	85.7%
Eased somewhat	2	9.5%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Eased somewhat	1	4.3%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

36. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to nonfinancial corporations across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Eased somewhat	1	4.3%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

37. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms applied to nonfinancial corporations have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses to questions 35 and 36) what are the most important reasons for the change?

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	23	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	85.7%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	2	10.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

   
   
2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

Questions 41 through 51 ask about OTC derivatives trades. Question 41 focuses on nonprice terms applicable to new and renegotiated master agreements. Questions 42 through 48 ask about the initial margin requirements for most-favored and average clients applicable to different types of contracts: Question 42 focuses on foreign exchange (FX); question 43 on interest rates; question 44 on equity; question 45 on contracts referencing corporate credits (single-name and indexes); question 46 on credit derivatives referencing structured products such as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) (specific tranches and indexes); question 47 on commodities; and question 48 on total return swaps (TRS) referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans). Question 49 asks about posting of nonstandard collateral pursuant to OTC derivatives contracts. Questions 50 and 51 focus on mark and collateral disputes involving contracts of each of the aforementioned types.

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

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

41. Over the past three months, how have nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements put in place with your institution's client changed?

1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
2. Acceptable collateral

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	3	14.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	85.7%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	100.0%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
6. Other

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	100.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	0.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	1	100.0%

   
   

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	19	90.5%
   Decreased somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	20	95.2%
   Decreased somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

   
   

45. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC credit derivatives referencing corporates (single-name corporates or corporate indexes) changed?

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	17	94.4%
   Decreased somewhat	1	5.6%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	17	94.4%
   Decreased somewhat	1	5.6%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	8.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	83.3%
   Decreased somewhat	1	8.3%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	12	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	12	92.3%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.7%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	1	6.3%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	15	93.8%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	16	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	15	93.8%
   Decreased somewhat	1	6.3%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	16	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	1	5.9%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	16	94.1%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	17	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	4.3%
Remained basically unchanged	20	87.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	2	8.7%
Total	23	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	4	19.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	71.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.6%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.6%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   
6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.9%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.9%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9%
   Total	17	100.0%

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

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

   
   

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.6%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.6%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   
6. Commodity

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

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

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

   
   

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
Decreased somewhat	3	15.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	4.8%
Remained basically unchanged	19	90.5%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.8%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	4	18.2%
Remained basically unchanged	17	77.3%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	4.5%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7%
      Eased Somewhat	4	21.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7%
      Eased Somewhat	4	21.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	20.0%
Remained basically unchanged	14	70.0%
Decreased somewhat	2	10.0%
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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
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%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	4	20.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	85.7%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	4	19.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	4.8%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2%
      Eased Somewhat	4	19.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	10	47.6%
Remained basically unchanged	11	52.4%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	100.0%

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	4.8%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	4	19.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	4.8%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	9.5%
Remained basically unchanged	18	85.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.8%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	19	86.4%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.5%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	19	86.4%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	4.5%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5%
      Eased Somewhat	2	12.5%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	68.8%
      Eased Somewhat	4	25.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5%
      Eased Somewhat	5	31.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3%
      Eased Somewhat	3	18.8%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	68.8%
      Eased Somewhat	4	25.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	62.5%
      Eased Somewhat	5	31.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	5	31.3%
Remained basically unchanged	8	50.0%
Decreased somewhat	3	18.8%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	18.8%
Remained basically unchanged	12	75.0%
Decreased somewhat	1	6.3%
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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	1	6.3%
Improved somewhat	5	31.3%
Remained basically unchanged	10	62.5%
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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0%
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0%
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	12	75.0%
Decreased somewhat	3	18.8%
Decreased considerably	1	6.3%
Total	16	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	15	93.8%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	1	6.3%
Total	16	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	5	31.3%
Remained basically unchanged	9	56.3%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	6.3%
Deteriorated considerably	1	6.3%
Total	16	100.0%

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	72.7%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	1	9.1%
      Total	11	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	8.3%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	91.7%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	8.3%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	91.7%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	8.3%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	75.0%
      Eased Somewhat	1	8.3%
      Eased Considerably	1	8.3%
      Total	12	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	1	8.3%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	66.7%
      Eased Somewhat	2	16.7%
      Eased Considerably	1	8.3%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	8.3%
Remained basically unchanged	9	75.0%
Decreased somewhat	2	16.7%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	8.3%
Remained basically unchanged	11	91.7%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	2	15.4%
Remained basically unchanged	11	84.6%
Deteriorated somewhat	0	0.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	13	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	7.1%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	7.1%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1%
   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.

Special Questions on uncleared swaps and new margin rules

Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act requires financial regulators to establish new minimum margin requirements for OTC derivatives that are not centrally cleared (uncleared swaps). In 2015, the U.S. prudential regulators (PRs) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) adopted final rules that began to be implemented in September 2016.¹ Under the new rules, parties involved in uncleared swap transactions must exchange initial margin (IM) when the trade is established and provide variation margin (VM) to each other on a daily basis over the life of the derivative contract.²
Questions 82 through 84 ask about how the overall use and pricing of uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules have changed since September 2016. Questions 85 through 92 ask about your firm's and clients' experiences in adopting the new VM requirements.

81. Does your firm make markets in uncleared swaps?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Yes	18	78.3%
No	5	21.7%
Total	23	100.0%

82. How has your clients' transaction volume in uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules changed since September 2016?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	88.9%
Decreased somewhat	2	11.1%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

83. How has your firm's transaction volume in uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules changed since September 2016?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	14	77.8%
Decreased somewhat	4	22.2%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

84. How have prices that your firm quotes to your clients for uncleared swaps that are affected by the new rules changed since September 2016?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Considerably more expensive	0	0.0%
Somewhat more expensive	1	5.6%
Remained basically unchanged	17	94.4%
Somewhat cheaper	0	0.0%
Considerably cheaper	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

85. For the transactions that are affected by the new rules, approximately how has the fraction of your clients' uncleared swap transactions that are collateralized by VM (as measured by gross notional amount outstanding) changed since September 2016?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased more than 50 percentage points	1	5.6%
Increased 25 to 50 percentage points	0	0.0%
Increased 0 to 25 percentage points	4	22.2%
Remained basically unchanged	11	61.1%
Decreased 0 to 25 percentage points	2	11.1%
Decreased 25 to 50 percentage points	0	0.0%
Decreased more than 50 percentage points	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

86. Which set of clients is your firm currently less likely to be collecting from and posting to daily VM?

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	0	0.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	0	0.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	1	50.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	1	50.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
4. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	3	75.0%
   2nd least likely	1	25.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	0	0.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	2	50.0%
   2nd least likely	2	50.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   
7. Other (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	6	85.7%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	1	14.3%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   
8. None

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	6	100.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   

87. Regarding client types for which your firm does not currently collect or post VM but would be required to do so under the new rules (as reflected in your response to question 86), what are the most important reasons your firm does not collect or post VM?

1. Do not have the infrastructure set up yet to receive and post margins daily with the client

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd Most important	1	100.0%
   3rd Most important	0	0.0%
   Total	1	100.0%

   
   
2. Difficulties in sourcing eligible collateral from the clients' side

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd Most important	1	50.0%
   3rd Most important	1	50.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
3. Difficulties in sourcing eligible collateral from your firm's side

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd Most important	0	0.0%
   3rd Most important	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
4. Have not yet established or updated necessary credit support annex (CSA) to cover daily VM

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	4	66.7%
   2nd Most important	1	16.7%
   3rd Most important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
5. Lack of segregation arrangements in place

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	2	66.7%
   2nd Most important	1	33.3%
   3rd Most important	0	0.0%
   Total	3	100.0%

   
   
6. Other (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	6	85.7%
   2nd Most important	1	14.3%
   3rd Most important	0	0.0%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   

88. For which asset classes is your firm currently less likely to collect and post daily VM?

1. Commodity derivatives

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	3	75.0%
   2nd least likely	1	25.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   
2. Credit derivatives

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	1	100.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	1	100.0%

   
   
3. Equity derivatives

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	0	0.0%
   2nd least likely	1	50.0%
   3rd least likely	1	50.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
4. Interest rate derivatives

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	0	0.0%
   2nd least likely	2	100.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
5. Foreign exchange derivatives (excluding physically settled FX forwards and swaps)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	5	71.4%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	2	28.6%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   
6. None

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Least likely	9	100.0%
   2nd least likely	0	0.0%
   3rd least likely	0	0.0%
   Total	9	100.0%

   
   

89. Regarding asset classes for which your firm is currently less likely to collect or post VM but would be required to under the new rules (as reflected in your response to question 88), what are the most important reasons your firm does not collect or post VM?

1. Operational readiness (for instance, margins were typically not collected for these asset classes before, so it takes time and effort to establish appropriate infrastructure and legal arrangements)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	4	80.0%
   2nd most important	0	0.0%
   3rd most important	1	20.0%
   Total	5	100.0%

   
   
2. Insufficient transaction price data

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd most important	0	0.0%
   3rd most important	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
3. Robust pricing models are not available

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd most important	0	0.0%
   3rd most important	0	0.0%
   Total	0	0.0%

   
   
4. Disagreements with clients on valuation frameworks or methodologies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	0	0.0%
   2nd most important	1	100.0%
   3rd most important	0	0.0%
   Total	1	100.0%

   
   
5. Other (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most important	5	100.0%
   2nd most important	0	0.0%
   3rd most important	0	0.0%
   Total	5	100.0%

   
   

90. Regarding the clients for which you have the necessary agreements and documentation in place, to what extent is International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) 2016 Variation Margin Protocol being utilized?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
0 to 25 percent	13	72.2%
25 to 50 percent	2	11.1%
50 to 75 percent	1	5.6%
75 to 100 percent	2	11.1%
Total	18	100.0%

91. How has the volume of mark and collateral disputes on VM changed since September 2016?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	1	5.6%
Increased somewhat	6	33.3%
Remained basically unchanged	11	61.1%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

92. On average, how long does it take to resolve a mark and collateral dispute on VM?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Two days or fewer	6	33.3%
More than two days but less than a week	11	61.1%
More than a week but less than a month	1	5.6%
More than a month	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

1. Prudential regulators refer to the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Farm Credit Administration, and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Return to text

2. The rules apply to uncleared swap transactions between "covered swap entities" or between a "covered swap entity" and a financial end user. The rules apply to all asset classes except for physically settled FX forwards and swaps.
IM is required to be phased in on various dates over four years, from September 1, 2016, for a group of large swap dealers and major market participants to September 1, 2020, for the least active financial institutions covered under the rules. The VM requirements take effect within a short phase-in period, from September 1, 2016, for swap dealers and major participants to March 1, 2017, for other financial institutions. In February 2017, the Federal Reserve Board, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the CFTC provided regulatory guidance for counterparties to make good faith efforts to comply with the final rule in a timely manner, but no later than September 1, 2017, if no significant credit and market risk exposures are expected. Return to text