skip to main navigation skip to secondary navigation skip to content
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
skip to content

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms
September 2013

Summary

In this Section:

The September 2013 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 set of questions, this survey included a set of special questions about liquidity and functioning in selected markets during the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July. The 22 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all of the 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 from August 21, 2013, to September 3, 2013. The core questions ask about changes between June 2013 and August 2013.1

Responses to the September survey generally suggested little change over the past three months in the credit terms applicable to most classes of counterparties covered by the survey and in most nonprice terms incorporated in OTC derivatives master agreements. However, responses to the survey offered several insights regarding recent developments and current areas of focus in dealer-intermediated markets:

  • Nearly one-fourth of dealers reported tightening in nonprice terms offered to trading real estate investment trusts (REITs).2
  • Over the past three months, about one-fifth of respondents reported a decline in financial leverage use by hedge funds and one-third of dealers reported a decrease with respect to trading REITs. However, respondents noted that the use of leverage by other classes of counterparties covered by the survey had remained basically unchanged.
  • Dealers reported that the credit terms applicable to funding of the various types of securities covered in the survey were little changed, on net, over the past three months. Survey respondents also noted that demand for funding had remained basically unchanged for most collateral types over the same period. However, about one-fourth of respondents indicated that demand for funding of agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) had decreased somewhat, while a few dealers reported an increase in demand for funding of non-agency RMBS.
  • In responses to the special questions asking about market liquidity and functioning during the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, dealers indicated that liquidity and functioning generally deteriorated across a number of fixed-income markets, including those typically perceived to be the most liquid and deep, such as the markets for U.S. Treasury and agency securities. Of note, the special questions evoked responses that were stronger in terms of declines in liquidity than the core questions focused on such issues, which covered the entire survey period from June to August.
  • With respect to the client types most affected by the decline in liquidity and functioning during the period of heightened market volatility, in responses to the special questions, dealers noted some differences across security types. In the market for U.S. Treasury securities, however, survey respondents indicated that essentially all client types were at least somewhat affected, likely reflecting the broad use of Treasury securities in financial markets and the perceived liquidity and depth of this market.

Counterparty Types

(Questions 1-40)

Dealers and other financial intermediaries. In the September survey, about three-fourths of respondents indicated that the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries remained basically unchanged over the past three months, while the remainder pointed to an increase. (See the exhibit "Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit.") The fraction of dealers reporting an increase in the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated exposures to dealers and other financial intermediaries has remained well below the 90 percent peak reached in the December 2011 survey.

Central counterparties and other financial utilities. About one-half of respondents indicated that they increased the amount of resources and attention devoted to management of concentrated credit exposures to central counterparties and other financial utilities over the past three months, a fraction that was little changed from the June survey. About one-fourth of survey respondents noted that changes in the practices of central counterparties, including changes in margin requirements and haircuts, had had some influence or considerable influence on the credit terms they applied to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.

Hedge funds. As in the past few surveys, respondents to the September survey generally indicated that both price terms (such as financing rates) and nonprice terms (including haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) offered to hedge funds for securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions remained basically unchanged over the past three months. However, a small net fraction of respondents reported that the price terms offered to hedge funds had tightened somewhat. Dealers noted that the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. About one-fifth of respondents reported a decrease in the use of financial leverage by hedge funds over the past three months, a reversal of the trend seen in the past few surveys. (See the exhibit "Use of Financial Leverage.") All but one respondent indicated also that the availability of additional (and currently not utilized) financial leverage under agreements currently in place with hedge funds had remained unchanged over the past three months.

Trading real estate investment trusts. While most respondents to the September survey noted that price terms offered to trading REITs had remained basically unchanged over the past three months, a net fraction of nearly one-fourth reported having tightened nonprice terms offered to these institutions. A deterioration in the current or expected future financial strength of such counterparties and a worsening in general market liquidity and functioning were the two most cited reasons for the tightening. On net, one-third of respondents also indicated that the use of financial leverage by trading REITs had decreased somewhat over the past three months.

Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments. Respondents to the September survey indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), pension plans, and endowments had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the intensity of efforts by clients to negotiate more-favorable terms also were reported to be little changed, as was the use of financial leverage.

Insurance companies. As in the previous survey, respondents to the September survey indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to insurance companies had changed little over the past three months, as had the provision of differential terms to most-favored clients. Nearly one-fourth of respondents, however, reported an increase in the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms. The use of financial leverage by insurance companies reportedly remained unchanged.

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers. Similarly, nearly all of the dealers indicated in the September survey that price and nonprice terms negotiated by investment advisers on behalf of separately managed accounts were basically unchanged over the past three months. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the use of financial leverage by investment advisers were also reported to be basically unchanged, as was the intensity of efforts by investment advisers to negotiate more-favorable terms.

Nonfinancial corporations. The vast majority of respondents to the September survey indicated that price and nonprice terms offered to nonfinancial corporations had remained basically unchanged over the past three months. A few dealers, however, reported an easing of nonprice terms offered to these clients. Dealers cited more-aggressive competition from other institutions as the most important reason for the easing. About one-fifth of respondents reported an increase in the intensity of efforts by nonfinancial corporations to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms.

Mark and collateral disputes. As in previous surveys, the vast majority of respondents in September indicated that the volume, persistence, and duration of mark and collateral disputes with each counterparty type included in the survey were little changed over the past three months despite the volatility that became evident in fixed income markets early in the summer.

Back to section top

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

(Questions 41-51)

Over the past three months, most nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements were reported to be basically unchanged on net.3 However, a few dealers reported a tightening in acceptable collateral and in other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions).

Nearly all of the survey respondents indicated that initial margins (which fall outside the scope of master agreements) had remained basically unchanged over the past three months, for both average and most-favored clients, and for all of the contract types included in the survey. Posting of nonstandard collateral (that is, collateral other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities) also remained basically unchanged. For most contract types, the vast majority of dealers indicated that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes had remained basically unchanged over the past three months.

Back to section top

Securities Financing

(Questions 52-79)4

As in previous surveys, dealers reported that the credit terms under which most types of securities included in the survey are financed were little changed, on balance, over the past three months.

In the September survey, dealers reported that demand for funding had remained basically unchanged for most collateral types. (See the exhibit "Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning.") However, about one-fourth of respondents indicated that demand for funding of agency RMBS had decreased somewhat. By contrast, a few dealers reported an increase in demand for funding of non-agency RMBS.

For all collateral types covered in the survey, with the exception of high-yield corporate bonds, net fractions of dealers ranging between about one-fifth and two-fifths reported that the liquidity and functioning of the underlying markets had deteriorated over the past three months.5

Finally, as in previous surveys, nearly all of the respondents indicated that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes were basically unchanged for all of the collateral types.

Back to section top

Special Questions about Liquidity and Functioning in Selected Markets during the Recent Period of Heightened Market Volatility

(Questions 81-90)

The special questions in the September survey asked dealers to assess the extent to which market liquidity and functioning had changed with respect to certain types of securities during the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July. Respondents were asked to assess market liquidity and functioning for U.S. Treasury securities, Treasury inflation-protected securities (TIPS), high-grade corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds, and agency RMBS. To the extent that liquidity and functioning had deteriorated during the reference period, dealers were asked to identify the types of clients who appeared to be most affected by such deterioration.

Dealers indicated that liquidity and functioning appeared to have generally deteriorated across these markets, including those typically perceived to be most liquid and deep such as markets for Treasury and agency securities. More specifically, varying fractions of respondents reported a deterioration, ranging from somewhat less than one-half of respondents--with respect to Treasury securities--to about two-thirds of them for TIPS and agency RMBS. Of note, two-fifths of dealers characterized the deterioration in liquidity and functioning in TIPS as "considerable."

As for the client types most affected by the decline in liquidity and functioning over this period, dealers noted some differences across security types. In the market for U.S. Treasury securities, vast majorities of survey respondents reporting a deterioration indicated that essentially all client types were at least somewhat affected, likely reflecting the broad use of Treasury securities in financial markets and the perceived liquidity and depth of this market ex ante. With respect to TIPS, dealers reported that hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds, and ETFs were the clients most affected during the period of heightened volatility. With regard to agency RMBS, respondents identified REITs, hedge funds, and mutual funds as the clients most exposed to the deterioration in liquidity and functioning. Finally, with respect to corporate bonds (both investment- and speculative-grade), hedge funds were reported to be the most affected clients, followed by ETFs, mutual funds, and insurance companies.

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

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

Exhibit 1: Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit. Please use the link to access the underlying data.

Accessible Version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage. Please use the link to access the underlying data.

Accessible Version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning. Please use the link to access the underlying data.

Accessible Version

Results of the September 2013 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

In this Section:

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 5 22.7
Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 1 4.5
Increased somewhat 11 50.0
Remained basically unchanged 10 45.5
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
To a considerable extent 1 4.5
To some extent 4 18.2
To a minimal extent 9 40.9
Not at all 8 36.4
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


Hedge Funds

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 3 13.6
Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

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

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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 3 13.6
Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
Decreased somewhat 4 18.2
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 4.5
Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 2 11.8
Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 6 33.3
Remained basically unchanged 10 55.6
Eased somewhat 2 11.1
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 4 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 4 100.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 1 100.0
      Third in importance 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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 50.0
      Second in importance 1 50.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 1 100.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 50.0
      Second in importance 1 50.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 1 100.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
14. How has the intensity of efforts by trading REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months?
  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 5.6
Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 2 11.1
Remained basically unchanged 8 44.4
Decreased somewhat 8 44.4
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

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

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

Back to section top


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

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 2 9.1
Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

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

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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 2 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 1 100.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 3 13.6
Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  1. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
    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 2 10.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0
    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 19 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 4.5
Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


Insurance Companies

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

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

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

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

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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 5 22.7
Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 4.5
Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent--for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  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

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
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

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

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 2 10.0
Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

Back to section top


Nonfinancial Corporations

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 2 9.1
Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
Eased somewhat 2 9.1
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4
Eased somewhat 3 13.6
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 1 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 1 100.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 0 0.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percent
      First in importance 3 100.0
      Second in importance 0 0.0
      Third in importance 0 0.0
      Total 3 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 4 18.2
Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 4.5
    Increased somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained basically unchanged 18 81.8
    Decreased somewhat 2 9.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 2 9.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  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 18 85.7
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 4.5
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  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 20 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 4.8
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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 2 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 21 95.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 9.5
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      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
  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 19 95.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

Back to section top

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

In this Section:

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 clients changed?

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
      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
  2. Acceptable collateral
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 3 15.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0
    Eased somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  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 94.7
    Eased somewhat 1 5.3
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Triggers and covenants
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0
    Eased somewhat 2 10.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0
    Eased somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

Back to section top


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 19 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents 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

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 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 1 5.0
    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 20 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    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 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

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 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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 12 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 12 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100.0

Back to section top


Nonstandard Collateral

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 4.5
Remained basically unchanged 20 90.9
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 1 4.5
Total 22 100.0

Back to section top


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 2 11.1
    Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  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 1 5.3
    Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      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
  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 12 92.3
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.7
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0
  6. Commodity
      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
  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 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 12 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100.0

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 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  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 12 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100.0
  6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  7. 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 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 11 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 11 100.0

Back to section top

Securities Financing

In this Section:

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 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 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 17 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents 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 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 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 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 5.6
Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9
Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
Deteriorated somewhat 4 22.2
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100.0

Back to section top


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 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 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 6.7
      Remained basically unchanged 13 86.7
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 1 6.7
      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 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 1 6.7
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 1 7.1
      Total 14 100.0
    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 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 1 7.1
      Total 14 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 6.7
Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 6.7
Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 1 6.3
Improved somewhat 2 12.5
Remained basically unchanged 11 68.8
Deteriorated somewhat 2 12.5
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

Back to section top


Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 21 100.00
      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 1 4.8
      Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents 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 21 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0

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

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

Back to section top


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained basically unchanged 16 84.2
      Eased somewhat 2 10.5
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        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
    3. Haircuts
        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
    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
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 89.5
      Eased somewhat 2 10.5
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.3
      Remained basically unchanged 16 84.2
      Eased somewhat 2 10.5
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.6
      Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9
      Eased somewhat 1 5.6
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 5.3
Remained basically unchanged 12 63.2
Decreased somewhat 6 31.6
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 6 31.6
Remained basically unchanged 12 63.2
Decreased somewhat 1 5.3
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 1 5.3
Remained basically unchanged 12 63.2
Deteriorated somewhat 5 26.3
Deteriorated considerably 1 5.3
Total 19 100.0

Back to section top


Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 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 15 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 6.7
      Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      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 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 12 80.0
      Eased somewhat 3 20.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0
    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 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      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 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 15 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 3 20.0
Remained basically unchanged 11 73.3
Decreased somewhat 1 6.7
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 3 20.0
Remained basically unchanged 11 73.3
Decreased somewhat 1 6.7
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 9 60.0
Deteriorated somewhat 6 40.0
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 15 100.0

Back to section top


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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 13 100.0

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

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

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 1 7.7
Remained basically unchanged 7 53.8
Deteriorated somewhat 5 38.5
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 13 100.0

Back to section top


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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0
    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 13 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 13 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 13 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 13 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 2 15.4
Remained basically unchanged 11 84.6
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 13 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 9 69.2
Deteriorated somewhat 4 30.8
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 13 100.0

Back to section top


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 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents 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. Agency RMBS
      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
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 6.7
    Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0

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 18 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents 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. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 1 6.7
    Total 15 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 1 6.3
    Total 16 100.0

Back to section top



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.6

Special Questions

The following special questions are intended to provide better context for interpreting the core set of questions appearing above, 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.

Liquidity and Functioning of Selected Markets during the Period of Recent Volatility

During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, questions were raised in press reports about secondary market liquidity with respect to several types of securities, including some commonly viewed as highly liquid. Question 81 asks about liquidity and functioning in the secondary market for U.S. Treasury securities during that specific period.7 Question 82 follows up on this question and asks, if liquidity and functioning with respect to U.S. Treasury securities were described as having declined during the May-early July period, which types of clients, if any, appeared to be most affected by such developments. Questions 83 and 84 solicit comparable information, but with respect to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities (TIPS). In a similar vein, questions 85 and 86 focus on high-grade corporate bonds, questions 87 and 88 focus on high-yield corporate bonds, and questions 89 and 90 focus on agency RMBS.

81. During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, how did liquidity and functioning in the market for U.S. Treasury securities change?

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 1 4.5
Remained basically unchanged 10 45.5
Deteriorated somewhat 8 36.4
Deteriorated considerably 3 13.6
Total 22 100.0

82. To the extent that liquidity and functioning in the market for U.S. Treasury securities deteriorated during the referenced period of heightened market volatility (as reflected in your response to question 81), which types of clients appeared to be most affected?

  1. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 4 36.4
    Somewhat affected 5 45.5
    Minimally affected or unaffected 2 18.2
    Total 11 100.0
  2. REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 22.2
    Somewhat affected 6 66.7
    Minimally affected or unaffected 1 11.1
    Total 9 100.0
  3. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 9.1
    Somewhat affected 7 63.6
    Minimally affected or unaffected 3 27.3
    Total 11 100.0
  4. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 12.5
    Somewhat affected 5 62.5
    Minimally affected or unaffected 2 25.0
    Total 8 100.0
  5. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 7 70.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 3 30.0
    Total 10 100.0
  6. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 8 72.7
    Minimally affected or unaffected 3 27.3
    Total 11 100.0

83. During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, how did liquidity and functioning in the market for TIPS change?

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 7 36.8
Deteriorated somewhat 4 21.1
Deteriorated considerably 8 42.1
Total 19 100.0

84. To the extent that liquidity and functioning in the market for TIPS deteriorated during the referenced period of heightened market volatility (as reflected in your response to question 83), which types of clients appeared to be most affected?

  1. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 4 36.4
    Somewhat affected 4 36.4
    Minimally affected or unaffected 3 27.3
    Total 11 100.0
  2. REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 1 16.7
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 83.3
    Total 6 100.0
  3. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 4 36.4
    Somewhat affected 4 36.4
    Minimally affected or unaffected 3 27.3
    Total 11 100.0
  4. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 20.0
    Somewhat affected 4 40.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 4 40.0
    Total 10 100.0
  5. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 6 54.5
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 45.5
    Total 11 100.0
  6. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 4 40.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 6 60.0
    Total 10 100.0

85. During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, how did liquidity and functioning in the market for high-grade corporate bonds change?

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 9 45.0
Deteriorated somewhat 9 45.0
Deteriorated considerably 2 10.0
Total 20 100.0

86. To the extent that liquidity and functioning in the market for high-grade corporate bonds deteriorated during the referenced period of heightened market volatility (as reflected in your response to question 85), which types of clients appeared to be most affected?

  1. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 20.0
    Somewhat affected 6 60.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 2 20.0
    Total 10 100.0
  2. REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 0 0.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 100.0
    Total 5 100.0
  3. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 11.1
    Somewhat affected 4 44.4
    Minimally affected or unaffected 4 44.4
    Total 9 100.0
  4. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 10.0
    Somewhat affected 5 50.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 4 40.0
    Total 10 100.0
  5. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 3 33.3
    Minimally affected or unaffected 6 66.7
    Total 9 100.0
  6. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 20.0
    Somewhat affected 3 30.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 50.0
    Total 10 100.0

87. During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, how did liquidity and functioning in the market for high-yield corporate bonds change?

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 8 40.0
Deteriorated somewhat 9 45.0
Deteriorated considerably 3 15.0
Total 20 100.0

88. To the extent that liquidity and functioning in the market for high-yield corporate bonds deteriorated during the referenced period of heightened market volatility (as reflected in your response to question 87), which types of clients appeared to be most affected?

  1. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 16.7
    Somewhat affected 6 50.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 4 33.3
    Total 12 100.0
  2. REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 0 0.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 8 100.0
    Total 8 100.0
  3. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 18.2
    Somewhat affected 3 27.3
    Minimally affected or unaffected 6 54.5
    Total 11 100.0
  4. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 2 18.2
    Somewhat affected 4 36.4
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 45.5
    Total 11 100.0
  5. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 3 27.3
    Minimally affected or unaffected 8 72.7
    Total 11 100.0
  6. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 8.3
    Somewhat affected 4 33.3
    Minimally affected or unaffected 7 58.3
    Total 12 100.0

89. During the period of heightened market volatility beginning in May and extending into early July, how did liquidity and functioning in the market for agency RMBS change?

  Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 6 31.6
Deteriorated somewhat 8 42.1
Deteriorated considerably 5 26.3
Total 19 100.0

90. To the extent that liquidity and functioning in the market for agency RMBS deteriorated during the referenced period of heightened market volatility (as reflected in your response to question 89), which types of clients appeared to be most affected?

  1. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 4 30.8
    Somewhat affected 4 30.8
    Minimally affected or unaffected 5 38.5
    Total 13 100.0
  2. REITs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 6 46.2
    Somewhat affected 3 23.1
    Minimally affected or unaffected 4 30.8
    Total 13 100.0
  3. Mutual funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 6 50.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 6 50.0
    Total 12 100.0
  4. ETFs
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 1 10.0
    Somewhat affected 3 30.0
    Minimally affected or unaffected 6 60.0
    Total 10 100.0
  5. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 4 36.4
    Minimally affected or unaffected 7 63.6
    Total 11 100.0
  6. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
    Significantly affected 0 0.0
    Somewhat affected 4 33.3
    Minimally affected or unaffected 8 66.7
    Total 12 100.0

Footnotes

1. For questions that ask about credit terms, reported 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, reported 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. Trading REITs, including agency REITs, invest in assets backed by real estate rather than directly in real estate. Return to text

3. The survey asks specifically about requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin, acceptable collateral, recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits, triggers and covenants, and other documentation features, including cure periods and cross-default provisions. Return to text

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

5. Note that survey respondents are 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 market itself. This question is not asked with respect to equity markets in the core questions. Return to text

6. See note 4 in the Summary. Return to text

7. This question is analogous to those routinely posed each quarter with respect to other types of securities, although in those instances respondents are asked to consider the entire three-month period covered by the survey. Return to text

Back to Top

Last update: October 28, 2013