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
March 2016

Summary

The March 2016 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about changes in dealers’ credit and counterparty exposures as a result of the recent decline in oil prices. The 21 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between February 17, 2016, and March 2, 2016. The core questions asked about changes between December 2015 and February 2016.1

Core Questions

(Questions 1-79)2

Responses to the core questions in March 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:

  • One-fifth of respondents reported an increase in resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries over the past three months. A smaller fraction of respondents noted an increase in resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposures to central counterparties and other financial utilities over the same period.
  • Dealers indicated that they had generally tightened price terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives across most classes of counterparties over the past three months, while nonprice terms were said to have changed little.
    • In particular, a net fraction of about one-fifth of respondents reported that price terms offered to hedge funds, nonfinancial corporations, real estate investment trusts, and separately managed accounts had been tightened somewhat.
    • The most-cited reason for the tightening in credit terms was a worsening in general market liquidity and functioning. Some respondents also cited their diminished availability of balance sheet or capital as well as higher internal treasury charges for funding as reasons for tightening terms.
  • Dealers indicated that the use of financial leverage by all classes of counterparties was little changed over the past three months. In addition, the majority of respondents noted that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with all counterparty types were basically unchanged.
  • With respect to securities financing transactions, one-third of dealers reported an increase in haircuts on high-yield corporate bonds over the past three months and noted an increase in financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark). In addition, one-fifth of respondents pointed to higher financing rates for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) over the same period, and a smaller fraction reported higher haircuts.
  • As in the December survey, one-fifth of dealers pointed to an increase in demand for funding for high-yield corporate bonds over the past three months. By contrast, about one-fifth of respondents reported a decrease in demand for funding for equities and a smaller fraction reported a decrease in funding demand for CMBS.
  • Dealers noted a deterioration in liquidity and market functioning across all asset classes, with more than two-fifths of respondents singling out high-yield corporate bond markets and one-third of respondents reporting a deterioration in liquidity and market functioning in CMBS and non-agency residential mortgage backed securities markets.

Special Questions on Exposure to Declines in Oil Prices

(Questions 81-85)

The recent decline in commodity prices, notably of oil, has reportedly created concerns on the part of market participants about the credit exposures of dealers to producers, processors, and other financial institutions. A set of special questions in the March survey sought information about dealers’ oil-related credit and counterparty exposures arising from various transaction and product types as well as against various client types.

With respect to the materiality of exposures to recent declines in oil prices both at the overall institution level and through various transaction and product types, responses to the special questions revealed the following:

  • About two-thirds of dealers characterized the materiality of current credit and counterparty exposures at the overall firm level as at least “somewhat significant.” The remaining respondents reported having either no significant exposures or no exposures at all.
  • Based on responses from dealers that reported at least “somewhat significant” exposures at the overall firm level, the following insights about exposures through various transaction and product types are noteworthy:3
    • Almost all respondents noted having at least “somewhat significant” exposure to revolving lines of credit and other liquidity arrangements, including those provided to investment fund clients with energy-related positions.
    • About two-fifths of dealers reported having at least “somewhat significant” exposure to term loans, including those secured by proven oil reserves, while almost two-fifths of respondents pointed to trade financings (for example, letters of credit).
    • Smaller fractions of dealers noted having exposures to cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with both financial and nonfinancial counterparties.
    • Only one respondent pointed to “very significant” exposures to structured transactions (for example, total return swaps, long-term oil purchase agreements, financing against estimated possible reserves, and transportation and storage agreements).

With regard to the client types driving the exposures for each of the transaction and product types covered in the survey, responses to the special questions revealed the following:4

  • Dealers pointed to commodity mining and producing companies, commodity trade companies, and other nonfinancial corporations as important drivers of exposures through term loans, revolving lines of credit, and trade financings.
  • A wider mix of client types were said to be at least somewhat important in accounting for exposures that arise from cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with both financial and nonfinancial counterparties.

Responses to the special questions offered the following insights with respect to changes in exposures since mid-2014, when oil prices began to decline, at the overall institution level and through various transaction and product types:

  • About two-fifths of dealers indicated that their overall exposures had remained basically unchanged, while a similar fraction of respondents reported that exposures had declined somewhat.
    • About one-fourth of dealers pointed to a decrease in exposures to term loans and revolving lines of credit, while about one-third reported a decrease in exposures to derivative transactions with nonfinancial counterparties.
  • To the extent that exposures have declined since mid-2014, almost all dealers noted that such a reduction had been implemented by lowering risk limits to the oil sector, to related counterparties, or to both, and by allowing positions to mature without reinvestment.

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

 

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

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

Accessible version

 

Results of the March 2016 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 4 19.0%
Remained basically unchanged 17 81.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%


Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 3 14.3%
Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
To a considerable extent 0 0.0%
To some extent 8 38.1%
To a minimal extent 5 23.8%
Not at all 8 38.1%
Total 21 100.0%


Hedge Funds

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 6 28.6%
Remained basically unchanged 14 66.7%
Eased somewhat 1 4.8%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 50.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 33.3%
      2nd Most Important 1 33.3%
      3rd Most Important 1 33.3%
      Total 3 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 4 80.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    8. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    8. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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

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 2 9.5%
Remained basically unchanged 16 76.2%
Decreased somewhat 3 14.3%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

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


Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 3 16.7%
Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 3 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    8. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 5.9%
Remained basically unchanged 15 88.2%
Decreased somewhat 1 5.9%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 17 100.0%


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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 3 14.3%
Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 50.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 3 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5%
Decreased somewhat 1 4.8%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

  1. Mutual funds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  2. ETFs
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  3. Pension plans
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  4. Endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

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


Insurance Companies

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 1 5.0%
Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 20 100.0%

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 20 100.0%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 20 100.0%

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 5.0%
Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 20 100.0%

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

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


Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 3 17.6%
Remained basically unchanged 14 82.4%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 17 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 50.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 2 66.7%
      3rd Most Important 1 33.3%
      Total 3 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 2 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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 18 100.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%

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

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

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

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


Nonfinancial Corporations

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 1 4.8%
Tightened somewhat 4 19.0%
Remained basically unchanged 15 71.4%
Eased somewhat 1 4.8%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Tightened considerably 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 2 9.5%
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 50.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 50.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 2 100.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 3 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 2 9.5%
Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 4 19.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 76.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  2. Hedge funds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

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

  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  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 21 100.0%

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

  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.3%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

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 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0%
    Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

  3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  4. Triggers and covenants
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
    Eased Somewhat 3 15.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0%
    Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  6. Other
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 0 0.0%


Initial Margin

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 1 5.6%
    Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9%
    Decreased somewhat 1 5.6%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 1 5.3%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

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 1 5.6%
    Increased somewhat 2 11.1%
    Remained basically unchanged 15 83.3%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 1 5.6%
    Remained basically unchanged 17 94.4%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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 2 11.1%
    Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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 2 14.3%
    Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 1 7.7%
    Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 13 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 1 7.1%
    Remained basically unchanged 13 92.9%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 2 16.7%
    Remained basically unchanged 10 83.3%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 1 8.3%
    Remained basically unchanged 11 91.7%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


Nonstandard Collateral

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

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


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. FX
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 17 100.0%

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 11.1%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  6. Commodity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.7%
    Total 15 100.0%

  7. 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 9 100.0%

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

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

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

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

  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  6. Commodity
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.7%
    Total 15 100.0%

  7. 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 9 100.0%

Back to section top


Securities Financing

In this Section:

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

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


High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 94.4%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 4 21.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 78.9%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 94.4%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 4 21.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 78.9%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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 2 11.1%
Remained basically unchanged 16 88.9%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%

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

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

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

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


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 11.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.6%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 2 11.1%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 27.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 61.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.6%
      Tightened Somewhat 6 33.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 61.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 11.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.6%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 2 11.1%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 27.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 61.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 1 5.6%
      Tightened Somewhat 6 33.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 61.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 18 100.0%

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 4 22.2%
Remained basically unchanged 13 72.2%
Decreased somewhat 1 5.6%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 9 50.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 9 50.0%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%


Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

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 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 17 81.0%
Decreased somewhat 4 19.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5%
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.5%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 3 15.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 78.9%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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 18 100.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 13 72.2%
Deteriorated somewhat 5 27.8%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 18 100.0%


Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      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 14 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 78.6%
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 4 28.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 71.4%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 7.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7%
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 71.4%
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 4 28.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 71.4%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 14 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 2 14.3%
Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 14 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 3 21.4%
Remained basically unchanged 11 78.6%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 14 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 7 50.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 6 42.9%
Deteriorated considerably 1 7.1%
Total 14 100.0%


Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 16.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 16.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 3 25.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 9 75.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 41.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 7 58.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 16.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 16.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 3 25.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 9 75.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 41.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 7 58.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 12 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 10 83.3%
Decreased somewhat 2 16.7%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 12 100.0%

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 6 50.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 3 25.0%
Deteriorated considerably 3 25.0%
Total 12 100.0%


Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 9 81.8%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 90.9%
      Eased Somewhat 1 9.1%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 9 81.8%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 9.1%
Remained basically unchanged 10 90.9%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 11 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 9.1%
Remained basically unchanged 10 90.9%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 11 100.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 6 54.5%
Deteriorated somewhat 3 27.3%
Deteriorated considerably 2 18.2%
Total 11 100.0%


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. High-grade corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 15.4%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 84.6%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 13 100.0%

  6. CMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 8.3%
    Increased Somewhat 1 8.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%

  7. Consumer ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 16.7%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%

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

  1. High-grade corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    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 14 100.0%

  6. CMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 15.4%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 84.6%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 13 100.0%

  7. Consumer ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 16.7%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 83.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%

Back to section top


Optional Question

Question 80 requests feedback on any other issues you judge to be important relating to credit terms applicable to securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives contracts.


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.


Exposure to declines in oil prices

The recent decline in commodity prices, notably of oil, has reportedly created concerns on the part of market participants about the credit exposures of dealers to producers, processors, and other financial institutions. Questions 81 to 85 seek information on the level and change (since the middle of 2014) of your institution's credit and counterparty exposures to declines in oil prices through various transaction and product types, and against various counterparties.

Question 81 asks about the magnitude of your institution's exposures through both direct lending and counterparty relationships overall and across various transaction and product types. Question 82 seeks information regarding the broad categories of clients driving this exposure. Question 83 focuses on how exposures overall and across various transaction and product types have changed since the middle of 2014. Finally, questions 84 and 85 ask, to the extent that your institution's overall exposure have, in fact, changed since that time, about the methods used by your institution to effect such changes.

81. How would you characterize the materiality of your institution's current credit and counterparty exposures to recent declines in oil prices at the overall level and through each of the following transaction and product types? (Please also consider indirect exposures--that is, exposures to entities that are not viewed as being directly engaged in the production or processing of energy but that may nonetheless be significantly and adversely affected by the decline in energy prices, such as oil-exporting nations.)

  1. Overall exposure across the institution
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 2 11.8%
    Fairly Significant 2 11.8%
    Somewhat Significant 10 58.8%
    Not Significant 3 17.6%
    Total 17 100.0%

  2. Term loans, including those secured by proven oil reserves
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 1 6.7%
    Fairly Significant 1 6.7%
    Somewhat Significant 4 26.7%
    Not Significant 9 60.0%
    Total 15 100.0%

  3. Revolving lines of credit and other liquidity arrangements, including those provided to investment fund clients that have energy-related exposures
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 2 11.8%
    Fairly Significant 2 11.8%
    Somewhat Significant 9 52.9%
    Not Significant 4 23.5%
    Total 17 100.0%

  4. Trade financings (for example, letters of credit)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 1 8.3%
    Fairly Significant 0 0.0%
    Somewhat Significant 3 25.0%
    Not Significant 8 66.7%
    Total 12 100.0%

  5. Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with nonfinancial counterparties
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 0 0.0%
    Fairly Significant 3 17.6%
    Somewhat Significant 2 11.8%
    Not Significant 12 70.6%
    Total 17 100.0%

  6. Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with financial counterparties, including central counterparties
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 0 0.0%
    Fairly Significant 1 6.3%
    Somewhat Significant 4 25.0%
    Not Significant 11 68.8%
    Total 16 100.0%

  7. Structured transactions (for example, total return swaps, long-term oil purchase agreements, financing against estimated possible reserves, and transportation and storage agreements)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 1 7.7%
    Fairly Significant 0 0.0%
    Somewhat Significant 0 0.0%
    Not Significant 12 92.3%
    Total 13 100.0%

  8. Other transaction and activity types (please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very Significant 0 0.0%
    Fairly Significant 0 0.0%
    Somewhat Significant 1 50.0%
    Not Significant 1 50.0%
    Total 2 100.0%

82. To the extent that your institution currently has at least "somewhat significant" exposure through one or more transaction or product types (as reflected in your responses to question 81.B through 81.G), please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving the exposure for each transaction and product type.

  1. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Term loans, including those secured by proven oil reserves in question 81.B, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 33.3%
      Not Important 2 66.7%
      Total 3 100.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 25.0%
      Not Important 3 75.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 25.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 3 75.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 3 100.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 20.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 60.0%
      Not Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 2 33.3%
      Somewhat Important 4 66.7%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 6 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 2 33.3%
      Somewhat Important 2 33.3%
      Not Important 2 33.3%
      Total 6 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 25.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 3 75.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 100.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

  2. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Revolving lines of credit and other liquidity arrangements, including those provided to investment fund clients that have energy-related exposures in question 81.C, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 33.3%
      Not Important 4 66.7%
      Total 6 100.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 14.3%
      Not Important 6 85.7%
      Total 7 100.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 16.7%
      Not Important 5 83.3%
      Total 6 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 5 100.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 2 20.0%
      Somewhat Important 4 40.0%
      Not Important 4 40.0%
      Total 10 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 9.1%
      Important 3 27.3%
      Somewhat Important 5 45.5%
      Not Important 2 18.2%
      Total 11 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 3 27.3%
      Somewhat Important 6 54.5%
      Not Important 2 18.2%
      Total 11 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 16.7%
      Not Important 5 83.3%
      Total 6 100.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 50.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 1 50.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

  3. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Trade financings (for example, letters of credit) in question 81.D, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 66.7%
      Not Important 1 33.3%
      Total 3 100.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 4 100.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 2 100.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 2 100.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 33.3%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 66.7%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 33.3%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 33.3%
      Not Important 1 33.3%
      Total 3 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 25.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 50.0%
      Not Important 1 25.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 2 100.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

  4. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with nonfinancial counterparties in question 81.E, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 75.0%
      Not Important 1 25.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 20.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 40.0%
      Not Important 2 40.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 50.0%
      Not Important 2 50.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 2 100.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 20.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 60.0%
      Not Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 1 20.0%
      Important 2 40.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 40.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 2 40.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 40.0%
      Not Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 2 50.0%
      Not Important 2 50.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 1 100.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

  5. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with financial counterparties, including central counterparties in question 81.F, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 25.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 75.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 2 40.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 20.0%
      Not Important 2 40.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 75.0%
      Not Important 1 25.0%
      Total 4 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 3 100.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 3 100.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 3 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 50.0%
      Not Important 1 50.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 1 33.3%
      Not Important 2 66.7%
      Total 3 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 33.3%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 2 66.7%
      Total 3 100.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

  6. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Structured transactions (for example, total return swaps, long-term oil purchase agreements, financing against estimated possible reserves, and transportation and storage agreements) in question 81.G, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 100.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 100.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 100.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

  7. If you selected: Very significant, fairly significant or somewhat significant for Other transaction and activity types (please specify) in question 81.H, please answer the question below: Please indicate the importance of clients of the following types in driving such exposure.
    1. Bank holding companies and their affiliated broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    2. Other broker-dealers
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    3. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 100.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    4. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    5. Commodity trading companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    6. Commodity mining and producing companies
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 1 100.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

    7. Nonfinancial corporates (other than commodity producers)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    8. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

    9. Other investors (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Very Important 0 0.0%
      Important 0 0.0%
      Somewhat Important 0 0.0%
      Not Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

83. Since mid-2014, when oil prices began to decline, how have your institution's credit and counterparty exposures overall and through each of the following types of transactions and products changed?

  1. Overall exposure across the institution
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.6%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 9 50.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 8 44.4%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. Term loans, including those secured by proven oil reserves
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 9 64.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 5 35.7%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  3. Revolving lines of credit and other liquidity arrangements, including those provided to investment fund clients that have energy-related exposures
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 12.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 7 43.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 6 37.5%
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.3%
    Total 16 100.0%

  4. Trade financings (for example, letters of credit)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 8 72.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 3 27.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 11 100.0%

  5. Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with nonfinancial counterparties
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 8 53.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 6 40.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.7%
    Total 15 100.0%

  6. Cleared and noncleared derivatives contracts with financial counterparties, including central counterparties
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 78.6%
    Decreased Somewhat 3 21.4%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  7. Structured transactions (for example, total return swaps, long-term oil purchase agreements, financing against estimated possible reserves, and transportation and storage agreements)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 9.1%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 7 63.6%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 18.2%
    Decreased Considerably 1 9.1%
    Total 11 100.0%

  8. Other transaction and activity types (please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 0 0.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 100.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

84. Considering all types of transactions and products, to the extent that your institution's overall credit and counterparty exposures related to oil have declined since mid-2014 (as reflected in your response to question 83.A), how has your institution effected such a reduction?

  1. Selling positions outright
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 1 50.0%
    Seldom Used 1 50.0%
    Total 2 100.0%

  2. Hedging using exchange-traded derivatives
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 1 100.0%
    Seldom Used 0 0.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

  3. Hedging using OTC derivatives, such as total return swaps
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Seldom Used 0 0.0%
    Total 0 0.0%

  4. Renegotiating collateral agreements
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 1 25.0%
    Used Somewhat 2 50.0%
    Seldom Used 1 25.0%
    Total 4 100.0%

  5. Reducing risk limits to the oil sector, related counterparties, or both
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 3 37.5%
    Used Somewhat 3 37.5%
    Seldom Used 2 25.0%
    Total 8 100.0%

  6. Allowing positions to mature without reinvestment
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 5 71.4%
    Seldom Used 2 28.6%
    Total 7 100.0%

  7. Other methods to reduce exposure (please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 2 66.7%
    Seldom Used 1 33.3%
    Total 3 100.0%

85. Considering all types of transactions and products, to the extent that your institution's overall credit and counterparty exposures related to oil have increased since mid-2014 (as reflected in your response to question 83.A), how has your institution effected such an increase?

  1. Extended additional credit or purchased positions outright
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 1 100.0%
    Seldom Used 0 0.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

  2. Reduced the use of derivatives for hedging
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Seldom Used 1 100.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

  3. Increased risk limits to the oil sector, related counterparties, or both
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 1 100.0%
    Seldom Used 0 0.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

  4. Other methods to increase exposure (please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Used Extensively 0 0.0%
    Used Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Seldom Used 0 0.0%
    Total 0 0.0%



Footnotes

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

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

3. The fractions in this section are calculated as a share of those dealers that report at least “somewhat significant” in their response to 81.A. The tables provided with the public report are calculated as a share of all dealers who responded to the questions. Return to text

4. The fractions in this section also are calculated as a share of those dealers that report at least “somewhat significant” in their response to question 81.A. The tables provided with the public report are calculated as a share of all dealers who responded to the questions. Return to text

Back to Top

Last update: March 31, 2016