Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The March 2019 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 the year-end dynamics in the short-term securities financing market for U.S. Treasury securities and the short-term global dollar funding market. 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 during the period between February 12, 2019, and February 25, 2019. The core questions asked about changes between December 2018 and February 2019.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

Responses to the core questions in the March survey offered a few insights into recent developments in dealer-intermediated 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 showed the following:

• Dealers reported that price and nonprice terms were unchanged for most classes of counterparties (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit). A small fraction of respondents noted an easing in price terms to their trading real estate investment trust clients.
• One-fifth of respondents indicated that efforts to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms have increased for hedge funds and nonfinancial corporations over the past three months.
• In contrast to the previous quarter, small net fractions of dealers responded that the duration of mark and collateral disputes had decreased somewhat over the past three months across the range of counterparties.

 

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, on net, dealers indicated little change over the past three months (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage) for all classes of counterparties.

With regard to OTC derivatives markets, responses showed the following:

• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged, on net, for average and most-favored clients.
• On net, dealers reported that the volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes have not changed across most OTC derivatives, although one-sixth of respondents indicated an increase in the volume of mark and collateral disputes for foreign exchange (FX) swaps.

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

• Similar to the trend in the past three quarters, one-fourth of dealers, on net, indicated a decrease in funding demand for equities (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning). Funding demand remained unchanged across all other asset classes.
• Demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days was reported to be little changed across all asset classes.³
• One-fourth of dealers, on net, reported an easing in effective financing rates (spreads over relevant benchmark) for non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities, and consumer asset-backed securities. One-fifth of dealers also reported an increase in the maximum maturity for non-agency RMBS, indicating an easing of terms. Funding terms were little changed across other asset classes queried in the survey.
• Dealers, on net, reported no material change in the liquidity and functioning of the market for underlying collateral across all asset classes in the past three months.⁴

Special Questions on Year-End Dynamics in the Short-Term Funding Markets
(Questions 81-92)

Short-term U.S. Treasury repurchase agreement (repo) markets and short-term global dollar funding markets have sometimes exhibited distinct dynamics at the end of the calendar year. In the U.S. Treasury interdealer repo market, the overnight general collateral rates increased sharply at the end of 2018, whereas the rate movement was much smaller at the end of 2017. In contrast, at the end of 2017, FX swap bases against both the Japanese yen and the euro increased dramatically, indicating higher costs for borrowing U.S. dollars, while at the end of 2018 increases in the FX swap bases were more muted. In the March 2019 SCOOS, dealers were asked about changes in the quantities and price terms they provided to their clients in securities financing transactions for U.S. Treasury securities and in dollar funding through FX swaps at the end of 2018 compared with earlier in December 2018 and with the end of 2017.

With respect to one-week or shorter securities financing of U.S. Treasury securities (lending collateralized by U.S. Treasury securities, for example, through reverse repurchase agreements):

• On net, dealers reported no change in their net supply of securities financing of U.S. Treasury securities in 2018 year-end relative to early December 2018. Compared with 2017 year-end, more than one-fourth reported an increase in the net supply.
• Nearly three-fifths of respondents answered that the price terms (repo rates over the relevant benchmark, such as the interest rate on excess reserves) tightened in 2018 year-end compared with early December 2018. Increases in demand for securities financing from other dealers and buy-side clients were the two most cited reasons, followed by less-aggressive competition from other institutions at the year-end and increases in Treasury issuance.
• More than one-half of respondents indicated a tightening of price terms in 2018 year-end relative to 2017 year-end. Increases in demand for securities financing from buy-side clients and increases in Treasury issuance were the most cited reasons, followed by increases in demand from other dealers. A few respondents also pointed to less-aggressive competition from other institutions.

With respect to the dollar funding that dealers provided in the one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps:

• On net, dealers responded that the net supply of dollar funding they provide to their clients did not change in 2018 year-end compared with both early December 2018 and 2017 year-end.
• More than two-fifths and two-thirds of respondents answered that the price terms (FX swap basis) that they provided to their clients in 2018 year-end eased compared with early December 2018 and 2017 year-end, respectively. Of the dealers that reported easing terms, almost all of them pointed to the decrease in demand for short-term dollar funding in the year-end due to high amounts of prefunding by their counterparties as either the most important or the second most important reason. The next most cited reason was a decrease in demand for dollar funding, unrelated to prefunding, by other dealers and buy-side clients.

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

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

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

3. This question is not asked with respect to equities in the core questions. Return to text

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

 

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

 

Results of the March 2019 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

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

 

 

Counterparty Types

 

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

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

 

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

 

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

 

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

 

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

 

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

 

 

Hedge Funds

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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	50.0
      3rd Most Important	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	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. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	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. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

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

   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	2	66.7
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	33.3
      Total	3	100.0

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   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
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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

 

1. Mutual funds

   	Number of Respondents	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

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

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

4. Endowments

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

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

 

Insurance Companies

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   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
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Nonfinancial Corporations

 

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

 

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?

 

 

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	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

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

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

   4. Higher 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. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	82.6
   Decreased Somewhat	3	13.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	22	95.7
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

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	2	9.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5
   Total	22	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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	87.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	13.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	23	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	87.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	8.7
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.3
   Total	23	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	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

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	16	76.2
   Decreased Somewhat	4	19.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	21	100.0

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	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

 

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	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

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

3. 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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

4. Triggers and covenants

   	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

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

   	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

6. Other

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

 

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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   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

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	95.0
   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

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	2	10.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   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	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	100.0
   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	17	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	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	5.6
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	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

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	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

 

Nonstandard Collateral

 

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

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	6.3
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	13.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.7
   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	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	78.9
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	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

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.7
   Total	15	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	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.7
   Total	15	100.0

 

Securities Financing

 

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

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

 

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

 

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

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

      	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

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

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

      	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

   5. Other

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

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2
      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	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	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	18	85.7
      Eased Somewhat	3	14.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	21	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	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. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	78.9
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	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

   2. Maximum maturity

      	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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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	93.8
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.3
      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	13	81.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	18.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	93.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      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	14	93.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	33.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	86.7
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      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	14	93.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	66.7
      Eased Somewhat	4	26.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	93.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      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	13	86.7
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	33.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

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

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	14	93.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7
      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	13	86.7
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	66.7
      Eased Somewhat	4	26.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Equities

   	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

4. Agency RMBS

   	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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

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

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	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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	13.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	13.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

 

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 Year-end Dynamics in Short-term Funding Markets¹

Short-term funding markets have sometimes exhibited distinct dynamics toward the end of the calendar year. In these special questions, we ask about changes in the quantity and the price terms of the funding you provided to your clients in EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps (questions 81 through 86) and securities financing for U.S. Treasuries (lending collateralized by U.S. Treasuries, for example, through reverse repurchase agreements; questions 87 through 92) in 2018 year-end compared with early December 2018 and with 2017 year-end. The questions focus on short-term FX swaps and securities financing with tenors of one week or shorter.

81. How did your institution’s net supply of dollar funding to your clients in one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps in 2018 year-end compare with your net supply in early December 2018?

 

 

82. How did your institution’s net supply of dollar funding to your clients in one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps in 2018 year-end compare with your net supply in 2017 year-end?

 

 

 

83. If your institution provided dollar funding to your clients in one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps, how did the price terms (FX swap basis) that your institution offered on those FX swaps around 2018 year-end compare with those in early December 2018? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent—for example, if the FX swap-implied USD rates have risen compared with the equivalent USD interest rate.)

 

 

84. To the extent that the price terms that your institution offered to your clients on one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps where your institution provided dollar funding tightened or eased in 2018 year-end compared with early December 2018 (as reflected in your response to question 83), what are the most important reasons?

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Increase in demand for dollar funding from your dealer counterparties

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

   2. Increase in demand for dollar funding from your buy-side clients

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

   3. Decrease in your ability to raise dollar funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Reduced willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

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

   5. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to global systemically important bank (G-SIB) surcharge calculation

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

   6. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to other regulations such as supplementary leverage ratio (SLR) and liquidity coverage ratio (LCR) requirements

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions at the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Decrease in demand for short-term dollar funding in the year-end due to high amount of pre-funding by your counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	8	88.9
      2nd most important factor	1	11.1
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	9	100.0

   2. Decrease in demand for dollar funding, unrelated to pre-funding, by your dealer counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	25.0
      2nd most important factor	3	75.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	4	100.0

   3. Decrease in demand for dollar funding, unrelated to pre-funding, by buy-side clients

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

   4. Increase in trade netting with clients toward the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increase in your ability to raise dollar funding from other institutions or markets

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

   6. Increased willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions at the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other (please specify)

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

 

85. If your institution provided dollar funding to your clients using one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps, how did the price terms (FX swap basis) that your institution offered on those FX swaps around 2018 year-end compare with those in 2017 year-end? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent—for example, if the FX swap-implied USD rates have risen compared with the equivalent USD interest rate.)

 

 

86. To the extent that the price terms that your institution offered to your clients on one-week or shorter EUR/USD and USD/JPY FX swaps where your institution provided dollar funding tightened or eased in 2018 year-end compared with 2017 year-end (as reflected in your response to question 85), what are the most important reasons?

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Increase in demand for dollar funding from your dealer counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Increase in your buy-side clients’ demand for dollar funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Decrease in your ability to raise dollar funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Reduced willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to G-SIB surcharge calculation

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to other regulatory framework such as SLR and LCR requirements

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Decrease in demand for short-term dollar funding in the 2018 year-end due to higher amount of pre-funding by your counterparties toward end of 2018 compared with end of 2017

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	8	88.9
      2nd most important factor	1	11.1
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	9	100.0

   2. Decrease in demand for dollar funding, unrelated to pre-funding, by your dealer counterparties

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

   3. Decrease in demand for dollar funding, unrelated to pre-funding, by buy-side clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	33.3
      2nd most important factor	1	33.3
      3rd most important factor	1	33.3
      Total	3	100.0

   4. Increase in trade netting with clients toward the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increase in your ability to raise dollar funding from other institutions or markets

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

   6. Increased willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

 

87. How did your net supply of one-week or shorter securities financing for U.S. Treasuries (lending collateralized by Treasuries, for example, through reverse repurchase agreements) to clients in 2018 year-end compare with that of early December 2018?

 

 

88. How did your net supply of one-week or shorter securities financing for U.S. Treasuries (lending collateralized by Treasuries, for example, through reverse repurchase agreements) to clients in 2018 year-end compare with that of 2017 year-end?

 

 

89. How did the price terms (for example, repo rates over the relevant benchmark) that your institution provided to your clients on one-week or shorter securities financing of U.S. Treasuries in the 2018 year-end compare with that of early December 2018? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent—for example, if repo rates have risen compared with the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER rate).)

 

 

90. To the extent that the price terms that your institution offered to clients for one-week or shorter securities financing of U.S. Treasuries tightened or eased in 2018 year-end compared with early December 2018 (as reflected in your response to question 89), what are the most important reasons?

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Increase in Treasury issuances

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	25.0
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	3	75.0
      Total	4	100.0

   2. Increase in demand for securities financing from your dealer counterparties

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

   3. Increase in demand for securities financing from your buy-side clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	37.5
      2nd most important factor	5	62.5
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	8	100.0

   4. Decrease in your ability to raise funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Reduced willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

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

   6. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to G-SIB surcharge calculation

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

   7. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to other regulatory framework such as SLR and LCR requirements

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

   8. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions at the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	2	33.3
      2nd most important factor	1	16.7
      3rd most important factor	3	50.0
      Total	6	100.0

   9. Other (please specify)

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

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Decrease in demand for short-term securities financing due to high amount of pre-funding by your counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Decrease in demand for securities financing, unrelated to pre-funding, from your dealer counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Decrease in demand for securities financing, unrelated to pre-funding, from your buy-side clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Increase in your ability to raise funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased willingness or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework, to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. More-aggressive competition from other institutions at the year-end

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

 

91. How did the price terms (for example, repo rates over the relevant benchmark) that your institution provided to your clients on one-week or shorter securities financing of U.S. Treasuries in 2018 year-end compare with that of 2017 year-end? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent—for example, if repo rates have risen compared with the interest rate on excess reserves (IOER rate).)

 

 

92. To the extent that the price terms that your institution offered to clients for one-week or shorter securities financing of U.S. Treasuries tightened or eased in 2018 year-end compared with 2017 year-end (as reflected in your response to question 91), what are the most important reasons?

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Increase in Treasury issuances

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	4	66.7
      2nd most important factor	0	0.0
      3rd most important factor	2	33.3
      Total	6	100.0

   2. Increase in demand for securities financing from your dealer counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	60.0
      2nd most important factor	2	40.0
      3rd most important factor	0	0.0
      Total	5	100.0

   3. Increase in demand for securities financing from your buy-side clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	3	37.5
      2nd most important factor	4	50.0
      3rd most important factor	1	12.5
      Total	8	100.0

   4. Decrease in your ability to raise funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Reduced willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

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

   6. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to G-SIB surcharge calculation

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

   7. Reduced willingness of your institution to provide balance sheet due to other regulatory framework such as SLR and LCR requirements

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

   8. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	1	20.0
      2nd most important factor	1	20.0
      3rd most important factor	3	60.0
      Total	5	100.0

   9. Other (please specify)

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

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Decrease in demand for short-term securities financing in 2018 year-end due to high amount of pre-funding by your counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   2. Decrease in demand for securities financing, unrelated to pre-funding, from your dealer counterparties

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   3. Decrease in demand for securities financing, unrelated to pre-funding, from your buy-side clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   4. Increase in your ability to raise funding from other institutions or markets

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   5. Increased willingness to take on risk or balance sheet availability at your institution, unrelated to regulatory framework

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   6. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

   7. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most important factor	0	Undefined
      2nd most important factor	0	Undefined
      3rd most important factor	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

 

1. The following special questions are intended to provide better context for interpreting the core set of questions in the previous section, which focus on changes in credit terms over the preceding three months. Unlike the core questions, these special questions will not be included in the survey on an ongoing basis. Return to text