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
June 2015

Summary

In this Section:

The June 2015 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, the survey included a set of special questions about liquidity conditions in selected fixed-income markets. The 21 institutions that participated in the June survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between May 19, 2015, and June 1, 2015. The core questions asked about changes between March 2015 and May 2015.1

As in most recent surveys, responses to the core questions in June generally suggested little change over the past three months in the credit terms applicable to most classes of counterparties covered by the survey. The responses, however, offered a few insights regarding recent developments in dealer-intermediated markets:

  • Nearly two-fifths of respondents reported an increase in the amount of resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated exposures to central counterparties and other financial utilities over the past three months. Nearly one-third of dealers noted that the practices of central counterparties (including margin requirements and haircuts) influenced to some extent the credit terms applied to clients on bilateral uncleared transactions.
  • Dealers indicated that the use of financial leverage by all classes of counterparties had remained basically unchanged over the past three months.
  • About one-fifth of dealers pointed to an increase in initial margin requirements applicable to OTC foreign exchange (FX) derivatives for both average and most-favored clients. The net fraction of respondents reporting an increase was somewhat smaller than that observed in the March survey.
  • One-fifth of dealers reported an increase in demand for funding of equities and almost one-third noted an increase in demand for funding of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS).

In response to the set of special questions on liquidity conditions in selected fixed-income markets, over four-fifths of respondents indicated that current liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities had deteriorated relative to the second quarter of 2010. A net fraction of one-half reported that conditions had deteriorated in secondary markets for agency RMBS, while two-fifths of dealers pointed to a deterioration in secondary markets for corporate bonds. Respondents reporting a deterioration primarily pointed to decreased willingness on the part of securities dealers to provide balance sheet resources for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes as well as changes in internal risk-management practices.

Counterparty Types

(Questions 1-40)

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries. As in the past several surveys, over four-fifths of respondents to the June survey reported that the amount of resources and attention devoted to the 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.)

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities. In the June survey, nearly two-fifths of respondents indicated that they had increased the amount of resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposures to central counterparties and other financial utilities over the past three months. Nearly one-third of dealers noted that changes in the practices of central counterparties, including changes in margin requirements and haircuts, had influenced, to some extent, the credit terms applied to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.

Hedge Funds. Four-fifths of respondents to the June survey indicated that price terms (such as financing rates) offered to hedge funds for securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions were little changed over the past three months. The remainder indicated that price terms had tightened somewhat; these respondents pointed to diminished availability of balance sheet or capital as the primary reason for such tightening. All dealers reported that nonprice terms (including haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) had remained unchanged. The provision of differential terms to the most-favored hedge funds remained essentially unchanged as well. However, one-fifth of respondents reported an increase in the intensity of efforts by hedge fund clients to negotiate more-favorable terms. The use of leverage and the availability of additional (and not utilized) financial leverage under agreements currently in place with hedge funds were reported to be generally unchanged. (See the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage.)

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts. As in the past few surveys, respondents in June indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to trading real estate investment trusts had remained largely unchanged over the past three months. On net, respondents indicated that the use of financial leverage was unchanged. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the intensity of efforts by clients to negotiate more-favorable terms were reported to be little changed.

Mutual Funds, Exchange-Traded Funds, Pension Plans, and Endowments. Almost all respondents to the June survey indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, 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 were reported to be little changed overall. Almost all respondents indicated that the use of financial leverage remained unchanged over the past three months.

Insurance Companies. As in previous surveys, respondents in June indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to insurance companies had changed little over the past three months, as had the use of financial leverage. Provision of differential terms to most-favored clients and the intensity of efforts by clients to negotiate more-favorable terms were also reported to be little changed.

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers. All of the dealers indicated in the June 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 unchanged, as was the intensity of efforts by investment advisers to negotiate more-favorable terms.

Nonfinancial Corporations. Respondents indicated that both price and nonprice terms offered to nonfinancial corporations had remained largely unchanged over the past three months. As in the past two surveys, a small number of dealers, on net, 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 the March survey, respondents in June indicated that the volume, persistence, and duration of mark and collateral disputes with all counterparty types included in the survey were little changed over the past three months.

Back to section top


Over-the-Counter Derivatives

(Questions 41-51)

As in previous surveys, the nonprice terms (such as acceptable collateral, covenants, and the recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits) incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements were reported to be generally unchanged, on net, over the past three months.2 About one-fifth of dealers in the June survey indicated an increase in initial margin requirements applicable to OTC FX derivatives for both average and most-favored clients. The reported increase in initial margins on OTC FX transactions was somewhat smaller than that observed in the March survey. For all other contract types, such as interest rate derivatives or equity derivatives, nearly all respondents indicated that initial margins had remained basically unchanged over the past three months for both average and most-favored clients.

Dealers reported little change in the frequency with which nonstandard collateral--that is, collateral other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities--was posted to fulfill margin requirements. Respondents generally reported that the volume, persistence, and duration of mark and collateral disputes had remained unchanged for all contract types, but one-fifth of dealers noted an increase in the volume of disputes for interest rate contracts.

Back to section top

Securities Financing

(Questions 52-79)

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. For high-yield corporate bonds, one-fifth of dealers noted that effective financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark) had tightened for both average and most-favored clients.

One-fifth of dealers reported in the June survey an increase in demand for funding of equities over the past three months, and almost one-third reported an increase in demand for funding of non-agency RMBS. Over one-third of respondents noted an increase in demand for term funding--that is, funding with a maturity greater than 30 days--of non-agency RMBS. For other collateral types reported in the survey, respondents indicated that the demand for funding and term funding has remained basically unchanged. (See the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning.)

For all collateral types, respondents indicated that the liquidity and functioning of the underlying markets remained basically unchanged over the past three months.3 Finally, similar to previous surveys, 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 on Liquidity Conditions in Selected Fixed-Income Markets

(Questions 81-89)

A number of market commentaries have pointed to a deterioration in liquidity conditions in secondary markets for fixed-income securities over the past several years. A set of special questions in the June survey asked in greater detail about changes in liquidity and market functioning in the secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities, agency RMBS, and corporate bonds relative to the second quarter of 2010.

Over four-fifths of respondents characterized current liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities as having deteriorated over the past five years. Of note, almost one-third of dealers reported that conditions had deteriorated considerably. With respect to the most important reasons for the change, respondents reporting a deterioration in liquidity conditions primarily cited decreased willingness on the part of dealers to employ balance sheet resources for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes.4 The next most cited reason attributed the deterioration to decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to employ balance sheet resources for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges. Other less frequently cited reasons were the increasingly automated nature of trading, increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers, and changes in demand for intermediation by clients.

Over one-half of dealers, on net, reported that liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for agency RMBS had deteriorated over the past five years. The reasons primarily cited for the deterioration were similar to those reported for nominal Treasury securities--that is, decreased willingness on the part of dealers to employ balance sheet resources for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes or as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges. Among the remaining choices, changes in demand for intermediation by clients was cited by several respondents as the third most important reason.

Two-fifths of dealers, on net, reported that liquidity and market functioning in the secondary markets for corporate bonds had deteriorated over the past five years. A few respondents pointed to an improvement, however. Among those reporting a deterioration, the distribution of reasons cited was very similar to what was reported for agency RMBS.

The June survey solicited open-ended commentary on metrics that best support the dealer's view of market liquidity evolution over the past five years. Because of the essentially qualitative nature of the responses, a brief summary of the responses is provided below in place of quantitative aggregation.

Among the metrics mentioned as best capturing the deterioration in secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities, reduced trading volume and turnover (defined as trading volume divided by debt outstanding) were the most frequently cited by survey respondents. Also featured in responses were wider bid-asked spread as well as reductions in measures of depth in the central limit order book or greater price impact of trades. A few dealers pointed to increased volatility at month-end and around market events as indicative of deteriorating liquidity.

With respect to the secondary market for agency RMBS, reduced trading volume was again the most frequently suggested metric for deterioration. Also cited were reduced market depth or greater price impact of trades, followed by higher bid-asked spread and increased volatility.

Finally, with regard to secondary markets for corporate bonds, respondents again most frequently pointed to reduced trading volume (or turnover) as an illustrative metric of the deterioration in liquidity and market functioning. Some survey respondents pointed to wider bid-asked spread, greater price impact of trades, increased volatility, reduced breadth (that is, a smaller number of issues being traded), and reduced average trade size as indicators that best summarize such deterioration.

Back to section top

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

 

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

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

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

Accessible version

 

Results of the June 2015 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 3 14.3
Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 8 38.1
Remained basically unchanged 13 61.9
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
To a considerable extent 0 0.0
To some extent 6 28.6
To a minimal extent 10 47.6
Not at all 5 23.8
Total 21 100


Hedge Funds

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 4 19.0
Remained basically unchanged 17 81.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 3 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 3 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

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 4 19.0
Remained basically unchanged 17 81.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 1 5.9
Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 17 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

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 2 11.8
Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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 3 17.6
Remained basically unchanged 13 76.5
Decreased somewhat 1 5.9
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 5.9
Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100


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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Eased somewhat 1 4.8
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

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 1 4.8
Increased somewhat 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  2. ETFs
    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

  3. Pension plans
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  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

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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


Insurance Companies

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Eased somewhat 1 4.8
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 1 100.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100

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 2 9.5
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 21 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100

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 20 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100


Nonfinancial Corporations

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 1 4.8
Tightened somewhat 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 1 4.8
Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Eased somewhat 0 0.0
Eased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

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
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 1 100.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 1 100.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very important 0 0.0
      Somewhat important 0 0.0
      Not important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

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 1 4.8
Increased somewhat 3 14.3
Remained basically unchanged 16 76.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 1 4.8
Total 21 100


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 2 9.5
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100

  2. Hedge funds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100

  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

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

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    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

  7. Nonfinancial corporations
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 5.6
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

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 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100

  2. Hedge funds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7
    Decreased somewhat 2 9.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100

  3. Trading REITs
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8
    Decreased somewhat 1 6.2
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100

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

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100

  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 15 88.2
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased considerably 1 5.9
    Total 17 100

  7. Nonfinancial corporations
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased somewhat 2 11.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

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 client changed?

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  2. Acceptable collateral
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 4 20.0
    Remained basically unchanged 14 70.0
    Eased somewhat 2 10.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  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 19 100.0
    Eased somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100

  4. Triggers and covenants
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100

  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100


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 4 22.2
    Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

  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 3 16.7
    Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

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 1 5.3
    Remained basically unchanged 17 89.5
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.3
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.3
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100

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 16 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100

  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

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 15 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100

  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

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 12 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100

  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

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 14 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100

  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

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 1 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 10 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 11 100

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 9.1
    Remained basically unchanged 10 90.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 11 100


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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


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 11.8
    Remained basically unchanged 13 76.5
    Decreased somewhat 2 11.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 4 21.1
    Remained basically unchanged 15 78.9
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100

  3. Equity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3
    Decreased somewhat 2 11.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

  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

  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

  6. Commodity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 14 93.3
    Decreased somewhat 1 6.7
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 15 100

  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 10 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 10 100

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 2 12.5
    Remained basically unchanged 12 75.0
    Decreased somewhat 2 12.5
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 3 16.7
    Remained basically unchanged 14 77.8
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100

  3. Equity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained basically unchanged 14 82.4
    Decreased somewhat 2 11.8
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100

  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100

  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 11 91.7
    Decreased somewhat 1 8.3
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 12 100

  6. Commodity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.1
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 14 100

  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 9 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 9 100

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 2 11.1
      Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3
      Eased somewhat 1 5.6
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.9
      Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
      Eased somewhat 1 5.9
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

  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 5.6
      Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
      Eased somewhat 1 5.9
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
Decreased somewhat 1 5.6
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0
Increased somewhat 1 5.6
Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100

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 18 100.0
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 18 100


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 2 11.8
      Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.9
      Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.9
      Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 3 18.8
      Remained basically unchanged 13 81.2
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100

  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 16 94.1
      Eased somewhat 1 5.9
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 5.9
      Remained basically unchanged 16 94.1
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 3 18.8
      Remained basically unchanged 13 81.2
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100

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 1 5.9
Increased somewhat 1 5.9
Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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 1 5.9
Increased somewhat 1 5.9
Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 1 5.9
Remained basically unchanged 13 76.5
Deteriorated somewhat 3 17.6
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100


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 1 4.8
      Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5
      Eased somewhat 1 4.8
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100

    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

    3. Haircuts
      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

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

  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 19 90.5
      Eased somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100

    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

    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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 2 10.0
      Remained basically unchanged 17 85.0
      Eased somewhat 1 5.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100

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 5 23.8
Remained basically unchanged 15 71.4
Decreased somewhat 1 4.8
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100

  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 19 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 19 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 18 100

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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100

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 1 5.3
Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100

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 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 17 89.5
Deteriorated somewhat 2 10.5
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100


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 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 2 14.3
      Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    3. Haircuts
      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

    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 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

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 4 28.6
Remained basically unchanged 10 71.4
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 5 35.7
Remained basically unchanged 9 64.3
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 1 7.1
Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100


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 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 2 14.3
      Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 1 7.1
      Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    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 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

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 1 7.1
Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 2 14.3
Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 7.1
Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100


Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    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 13 92.9
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

    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 14 100.0
      Eased somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100

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 2 14.3
Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 14.3
Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100

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 14 100.0
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100


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 17 100.0
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100

  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

  3. Equities
    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

  4. Agency RMBS
    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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    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

  6. CMBS
    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

  7. Consumer ABS
    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

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

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    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

  3. Equities
    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

  4. Agency RMBS
    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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    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

  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

  7. Consumer ABS
    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

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.

Special Questions

In this Section:

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

Liquidity Conditions in Selected Fixed-Income Markets

A number of market commentaries have pointed to a deterioration in liquidity conditions in secondary markets for a number of fixed-income securities over the past several years. Questions 81 to 89 cover selected fixed-income markets -- nominal Treasury securities, agency RMBS, and corporate bonds. For each category, the first question asks about broad liquidity and market functioning relative to the second quarter of 2010. The last two questions solicit information about metrics that, in your view, best illustrate such evolution of market conditions and possible reasons for changes.


Nominal Treasury Securities

81. Relative to the second quarter of 2010, how would you characterize current liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities?

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 0 0.0
Remained basically unchanged 3 14.3
Deteriorated somewhat 12 57.1
Deteriorated considerably 6 28.6
Total 21 100

82. In your view, which metrics best illustrate such evolution? (Please provide a text response.)

83. To the extent that liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for nominal Treasury securities has changed relative to the second quarter of 2010 (as reflected in your response to question 81), what are the most important reasons for this change?

  1. Possible reasons for an improvement
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Increased willingness on the part of dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or lower internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for a deterioration
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 2 66.7
      Third most important 1 33.3
      Total 3 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 4 100.0
      Total 4 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 1 25.0
      Second most important 1 25.0
      Third most important 2 50.0
      Total 4 100

    4. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 3 25.0
      Second most important 8 66.7
      Third most important 1 8.3
      Total 12 100

    5. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 13 81.2
      Second most important 3 18.8
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 16 100


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

84. Relative to the second quarter of 2010, how would you characterize current liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for agency RMBS?

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0
Improved somewhat 1 4.8
Remained basically unchanged 8 38.1
Deteriorated somewhat 8 38.1
Deteriorated considerably 4 19.0
Total 21 100

85. In your view, which metrics best illustrate such evolution? (Please provide a text response.)

86. To the extent that liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for agency RMBS has changed relative to the second quarter of 2010 (as reflected in your response to question 84), what are the most important reasons for this change?

  1. Possible reasons for an improvement
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 1 100.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    4. Increased willingness on the part of dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or lower internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 1 100.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    5. Increased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

  2. Possible reasons for a deterioration
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 1 100.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 5 100.0
      Total 5 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 3 33.3
      Second most important 5 55.6
      Third most important 1 11.1
      Total 9 100

    5. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 6 60.0
      Second most important 3 30.0
      Third most important 1 10.0
      Total 10 100


Corporate Bonds

87. Relative to the second quarter of 2010, how would you characterize current liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for corporate bonds?

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 1 4.8
Improved somewhat 2 9.5
Remained basically unchanged 6 28.6
Deteriorated somewhat 12 57.1
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100

88. In your view, which metrics best illustrate such evolution? (Please provide a text response.)

89. To the extent that liquidity and market functioning in secondary markets for corporate bonds has changed relative to the second quarter of 2010 (as reflected in your response to question 87), what are the most important reasons for this change?

  1. Possible reasons for an improvement
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 1 100.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    4. Increased willingness on the part of dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or lower internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 0 100

    5. Increased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 1 100.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

  2. Possible reasons for a deterioration
    1. Increasingly automated nature of trading
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 2 100.0
      Total 2 100

    2. Changes in demand for intermediation by clients
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 3 42.9
      Second most important 0 0.0
      Third most important 4 57.1
      Total 7 100

    3. Increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 0 0.0
      Second most important 1 100.0
      Third most important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100

    4. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 2 18.2
      Second most important 8 72.7
      Third most important 1 9.1
      Total 11 100

    5. Decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most important 6 54.5
      Second most important 3 27.3
      Third most important 2 18.2
      Total 11 100


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. 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

3. 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

4. Survey respondents were offered a list of five possible reasons for improvement or deterioration in liquidity conditions, as well as a sixth option of "Other," which invited text-based commentary. The five listed reasons for deterioration were (1) increasingly automated nature of trading, (2) changes in demand for intermediation by clients, (3) increased presence of nondealer firms as liquidity providers, (4) decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of changes in internal risk-management practices or higher internal treasury charges, and (5) decreased willingness on the part of the dealers to provide balance sheet for market-making purposes as a result of regulatory changes. Participants were asked to select up to three of the reasons and to indicate the order of importance among the selected reasons. Return to text

Back to Top


Last update: July 1, 2015