Summary

The September 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 the effects on dealer firms of the money market fund (MMF) reforms required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which must be implemented by mid-October 2016. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. (Note that 2 of the 23 participants were added to the September round of the survey.) The survey was conducted between August 23, 2016, and September 6, 2016. The core questions asked about changes between June 2016 and August 2016. ¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1–79)²

Responses to the core questions in the September survey offered a few insights regarding the developments in dealer-intermediated markets over the past three months:

• Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were basically unchanged across all classes of counterparties. The use of financial leverage by all classes of counterparties was also reported to have changed little.
• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were said to be basically unchanged for average and most-favored clients. 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, about one-fourth of dealers reported an increase in collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark (financing rates) for high-yield (HY) bonds for both average and preferred clients. Smaller fractions of respondents reported similar increases for high-grade bonds, non-agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), and commercial mortgage-backed securities. Other terms under which various types of securities are funded remained largely unchanged since the previous survey.
• More than one-fourth of dealers reported increased demand to fund non-agency RMBS, while about one-fifth noted greater demand to fund both high-grade and HY bonds as well as consumer asset-backed securities (ABS). Smaller fractions of dealers reported increased demand to fund agency RMBS and equities.
• A net fraction of more than one-fourth of respondents noted an improvement in liquidity and functioning in the underlying market for consumer ABS. Of note, despite robust issuance in the primary market, a net share of close to one-fifth of respondents reported a deterioration in liquidity and market functioning in the HY bond market over the past three months. For all other products, market functioning and liquidity were little changed.

Special Questions on Money Market Fund Reforms
(Questions 81–86)

The SEC’s 2014 MMF reforms have led to changes in the MMF industry, and more changes may occur before the October 2016 deadline for implementing key provisions of the reforms. These developments may have already affected dealers’ use of short-term funding to finance their activities and may have additional effects in coming months. The September 2016 survey included a set of special questions intended to help us understand the effects of the MMF reforms on institutions’ use of short-term funding instruments.

With respect to how their use of short-term funding instruments and counterparties has changed over the past year, dealers reported the following:

• The use of various short-term funding instruments has changed noticeably over the past year. Two-fifths of dealers indicated that they had reduced the use of commercial paper (CP) as a source of funding, while one-fourth noted a decline in the use of certificates of deposit (CDs). By contrast, small net fractions of dealers reported an increase in the use of Treasury and agency repos as well as other types of repos.
  • Of the respondents who reported decreased use of CP and CDs, almost all pointed to MMF reforms as at least a “somewhat important” reason for the decline. In addition, one-half of such respondents pointed to other post-crisis regulatory reforms and institution-specific internal factors as “important” reasons.
  • Of the respondents who reported increased use of Treasury and agency repos, one-half indicated that MMF reforms were a “very important” reason for the increase.³
  • Among the dealers who reported increased use of other types of repos, one-half noted that other post-crisis reforms and institution-specific internal factors were “very important” reasons for the change. ⁴
• In terms of counterparties, net fractions of roughly two-fifths and one-third of respondents reported a decrease in funding obtained from money funds via CDs and CP, respectively. By contrast, small net fractions of dealers indicated that Treasury and agency repo funding from money funds had increased.
• With respect to counterparties other than money funds, a net fraction of about one-fourth of respondents noted that funding from corporations via CDs had increased. Small net fractions of respondents also pointed to increases in funding from corporations and other investment funds via repos other than those backed by Treasury and agency securities. By contrast, dealers indicated that they were receiving less funding via Treasury and agency repos from securities lenders.

With respect to how dealers anticipate their use of short-term funding instruments and counterparties to change for the remainder of the year as a result of changes related to MMF reform, respondents indicated the following:

• About one-fifth of dealers expect their use of Treasury and agency repos to increase, while the vast majority of dealers anticipate the use of other types of repos to remain basically unchanged.
• More than two-fifths of dealers that use CDs as a funding source expect a decline, and a net fraction of about one-third of dealers that use CP as a funding source anticipate a decline.
• Several respondents expect to increase their use of other short-term funding instruments like corporate deposits and equity-linked notes.
• With respect to counterparties, one-fifth of respondents expect Treasury and agency repos provided by MMFs to increase. Conversely, at least one-fourth of dealers anticipate money funds to decrease funding via each of the other types of instruments listed in the survey.
• A net fraction of one-fourth of respondents expect pension funds to reduce their lending to dealers via CP; a smaller net fraction expect pension funds to reduce their lending via CDs.

Dealers were also asked to estimate how they expect price and nonprice terms they will face for the rest of the year to change in response to MMF reforms. Respondents reported the following:

• One-fourth of respondents anticipate financing rates for Treasury and agency repos to ease somewhat during the remainder of the year. By contrast, more than half of dealers expect rates on CDs and CP to increase.
• With respect to nonprice terms, one-fifth of dealers foresee an easing of nonprice terms (for example, maximum maturity) for CP, and a smaller net fraction of dealers anticipate easing for CDs.

This document was prepared by Charles Press, 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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

 

Results of the September 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

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	17.4%
Remained basically unchanged	19	82.6%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a considerable extent	1	4.3%
To some extent	3	13.0%
To a minimal extent	10	43.5%
Not at all	9	39.1%
Total	23	100.0%

Hedge Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

      
      
   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 (please specify)

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.0%
Remained basically unchanged	20	87.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.0%
Remained basically unchanged	20	87.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	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	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      

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	4.3%
Increased somewhat	3	13.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	82.6%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

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

1. Mutual funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
2. ETFs

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

   
   
3. Pension plans

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

   
   
4. Endowments

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

   
   

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.0%
Remained basically unchanged	20	87.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Insurance Companies

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	23	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	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	22	95.7%
Eased somewhat	1	4.3%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	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	0	0.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	0	0.0%

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	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	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	1	100.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   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	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%

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	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	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	20	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	2	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	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	0	0.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	0	0.0%

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0%
      2nd Most Important	1	100.0%
      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	1	100.0%
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0%
      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	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	19	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	19	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	94.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	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	1	4.3%
Remained basically unchanged	22	95.7%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	3	13.6%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	77.3%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	9.1%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	94.7%
   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	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	9.5%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	9.1%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.1%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	94.7%
   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	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	9.5%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   

Back to section top

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

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

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	1	4.5%
   Tightened Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
2. Acceptable collateral

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
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	21	100.0%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	1	4.5%
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	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	22	100.0%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
6. Other

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

   
   

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	12	100.0%
   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	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	23	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

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

   
   
2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	71.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Equity

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

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

   
   
6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	11.8%
   Total	17	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1%
   Total	14	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	5.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
2. Interest rate

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

   
   
3. Equity

   	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%

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
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	16	94.1%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.9%
   Total	17	100.0%

   
   
6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	2	11.8%
   Total	17	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	92.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   

Back to section top

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	50.0%
      Eased Somewhat	1	50.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	50.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	50.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	15.8%
Remained basically unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	2	10.5%
Remained basically unchanged	17	89.5%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	3	15.0%
Remained basically unchanged	15	75.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	2	10.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	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	5.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	4	22.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	77.8%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	5	27.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	72.2%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	21.1%
Remained basically unchanged	15	78.9%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	2	10.5%
Remained basically unchanged	17	89.5%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	15	75.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	4	20.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	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	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	26.7%
Remained basically unchanged	11	73.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	26.7%
Remained basically unchanged	11	73.3%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	2	13.3%
Remained basically unchanged	12	80.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	6.7%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	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	13.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0%
      Eased Somewhat	1	6.7%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	6.7%
Remained basically unchanged	13	86.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	6.7%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	15	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	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	2	13.3%
Remained basically unchanged	13	86.7%
Deteriorated somewhat	0	0.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	8.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3%
      Eased Somewhat	1	8.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	100.0%
      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	2	16.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	8.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	83.3%
      Eased Somewhat	1	8.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	1	7.1%
Improved somewhat	3	21.4%
Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
Deteriorated somewhat	0	0.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	14	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	94.7%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	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%

   
   

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	94.7%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	20	95.2%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	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%

   
   

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

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.

Money Market Fund Reforms

The Securities and Exchange Commission’s 2014 money market fund (MMF) reforms have led to changes in the MMF industry, and more changes may occur before the October 2016 deadline for implementing key provisions of the reforms. These developments may have already affected dealers’ use of short-term funding to finance their activities and may have additional effects in coming months. The special questions below are intended to help us understand the effects of the MMF reforms on your institution’s use of short-term funding instruments.

Questions 81 and 82 ask about how your institution’s use of different types of short-term funding instruments has changed and the reasons behind those changes over the past year, the period starting a few months prior to the first large reform-related conversions of prime MMFs to government MMFs. Question 83 seeks information on changes, over the same period, of the types of lenders providing funding to your institution. Question 84 asks about your expectations for how your institution’s use of various funding instruments will change over the remainder of the year as the final MMF reforms are implemented. Question 85 queries your expectations for changes in price and nonprice terms your institution may face for various funding instruments through the end of the year as the implementation of the MMF reforms approaches. Finally, question 86 asks about your expectations for changes, again through the end of the year, of the types of lenders providing funding to your institution.

81. Over the past year, how has your institution’s use of each of the following short-term funding instruments changed?

1. Treasury and agency repo

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	4.3%
   Increased somewhat	5	21.7%
   Remained basically unchanged	14	60.9%
   Decreased somewhat	3	13.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   
2. Repo collateralized by other fixed-income and equity instruments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	4	21.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	13	68.4%
   Decreased somewhat	2	10.5%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	19	100.0%

   
   
3. Certificates of deposit

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	7.1%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	8	57.1%
   Decreased somewhat	2	14.3%
   Decreased significantly	3	21.4%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
4. Commercial paper

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	6.7%
   Remained basically unchanged	7	46.7%
   Decreased somewhat	6	40.0%
   Decreased significantly	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
5. Other short-term funding instruments (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	25.0%
   Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	3	75.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   

82. To the extent that your institution’s use of each of the short-term funding instruments listed in question 81 has increased or decreased over the past year (as reflected in your response to question 81), what are the most important reasons for the change for that instrument? (Please respond to question 82.A.1 through 82.A.5 if you reported an increased use in responding to the preceding question or question 82.B.1 through 82.B.5 if you reported a decreased use in responding to the preceding question, as appropriate for each short-term funding instrument.)

A1. Possible reasons for increased use of Treasury and agency repo

1. Money market fund reform

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	3	50.0%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	1	16.7%
   Not important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	2	33.3%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	2	33.3%
   Not important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	2	33.3%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	4	66.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	2	33.3%
   Not important	3	50.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	1	16.7%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	4	66.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   

A2. Possible reasons for increased use of repo collateralized by other fixed-income and equity instruments

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	2	50.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	1	25.0%
   Not important	1	25.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	2	50.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	1	25.0%
   Not important	1	25.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	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%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	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%

   
   

A3. Possible reasons for increased use of certificates of deposit

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	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%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	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. Other reasons (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%

   
   

A4. Possible reasons for increased use of commercial paper

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	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%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	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. Other reasons (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%

   
   

A5. Possible reasons for increased use of other short-term funding instruments (as specified in your answer to question 81.E)

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	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%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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. Other financial market developments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	1	100.0%
   Not important	0	0.0%
   Total	1	100.0%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	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%

   
   

B1. Possible reasons for decreased use of Treasury and agency repo

1. Money market fund reform

   	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 post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	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%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	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%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	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%

   
   

B2. Possible reasons for decreased use of repo collateralized by other fixed-income and equity instruments

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	1	50.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	1	50.0%
   Not important	0	0.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	1	50.0%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	1	50.0%
   Total	2	100.0%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	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%

   
   

B3. Possible reasons for decreased use of certificates of deposit

1. Money market fund reform

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	3	50.0%
   Important	2	33.3%
   Somewhat important	1	16.7%
   Not important	0	0.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	2	33.3%
   Important	3	50.0%
   Somewhat important	1	16.7%
   Not important	0	0.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	1	16.7%
   Important	3	50.0%
   Somewhat important	1	16.7%
   Not important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	4	66.7%
   Not important	2	33.3%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	5	83.3%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   

B4. Possible reasons for decreased use of commercial paper

1. Money market fund reform

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	3	50.0%
   Important	2	33.3%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	1	16.7%
   Important	3	50.0%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	2	33.3%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	1	16.7%
   Important	3	50.0%
   Somewhat important	1	16.7%
   Not important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	0	0.0%
   Somewhat important	4	66.7%
   Not important	2	33.3%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
5. Other reasons (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	0	0.0%
   Important	1	16.7%
   Somewhat important	0	0.0%
   Not important	5	83.3%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   

B5. Possible reasons for decreased use of other short-term funding instruments (as specified in your answer to question 81.E)

1. Money market fund reform

   	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%

   
   
2. Other post-crisis regulatory reforms

   	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%

   
   
3. Institution-specific internal factors (for example, changes in risk-management practices)

   	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%

   
   
4. Other financial market developments

   	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. Other reasons (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%

   
   

83. How has your institution’s funding of each of the short-term instruments listed below from the following types of lenders changed over the past year?

1. Treasury and agency repo
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	5.0%
      Increased somewhat	5	25.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	10	50.0%
      Decreased somewhat	4	20.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	2	10.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	5.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	15	75.0%
      Decreased somewhat	2	10.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	5.6%
      Increased somewhat	1	5.6%
      Remained basically unchanged	14	77.8%
      Decreased somewhat	2	11.1%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	5.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
      Decreased somewhat	1	5.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	5.3%
      Remained basically unchanged	15	78.9%
      Decreased somewhat	3	15.8%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	17	89.5%
      Decreased somewhat	2	10.5%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	1	20.0%
      Decreased somewhat	4	80.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	5	100.0%

      
      
2. Repo collateralized by other fixed-income and equity instruments
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	10	66.7%
      Decreased somewhat	5	33.3%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

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

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	2	13.3%
      Remained basically unchanged	13	86.7%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	3	16.7%
      Remained basically unchanged	14	77.8%
      Decreased somewhat	1	5.6%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

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

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	15	100.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	2	66.7%
      Remained basically unchanged	1	33.3%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
3. Certificates of deposit
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	8.3%
      Remained basically unchanged	5	41.7%
      Decreased somewhat	2	16.7%
      Decreased significantly	4	33.3%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	3	25.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	6	50.0%
      Decreased somewhat	3	25.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	7.7%
      Increased somewhat	3	23.1%
      Remained basically unchanged	8	61.5%
      Decreased somewhat	1	7.7%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

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

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained basically unchanged	8	72.7%
      Decreased somewhat	1	9.1%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

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

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	2	50.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	25.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	0	0.0%
      Decreased somewhat	1	25.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	4	100.0%

      
      
4. Commercial paper
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	7.7%
      Remained basically unchanged	7	53.8%
      Decreased somewhat	2	15.4%
      Decreased significantly	3	23.1%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	2	15.4%
      Remained basically unchanged	9	69.2%
      Decreased somewhat	2	15.4%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	7.1%
      Remained basically unchanged	11	78.6%
      Decreased somewhat	2	14.3%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

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

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	9	81.8%
      Decreased somewhat	2	18.2%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

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

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	1	50.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	0	0.0%
      Decreased somewhat	1	50.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
5. Other funding instruments (as specified in your answer to question 81.E)
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	50.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	1	50.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	50.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	1	50.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	3	100.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	2	100.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	33.3%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	2	66.7%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	0	0.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	2	100.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Increased significantly	1	100.0%
      Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained basically unchanged	0	0.0%
      Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
      Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      

84. For the remainder of this year, how do you expect your institution’s use of the following short-term funding instruments to change as a result of possible changes in money markets arising from the MMF reforms?

1. Treasury and agency repo

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
   Expect to increase somewhat	4	17.4%
   Expect to remain basically unchanged	19	82.6%
   Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
   Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   
2. Repo collateralized by fixed-income and equity instruments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
   Expect to increase somewhat	1	4.8%
   Expect to remain basically unchanged	18	85.7%
   Expect to decrease somewhat	2	9.5%
   Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
3. Certificates of deposit

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
   Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
   Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	57.1%
   Expect to decrease somewhat	5	35.7%
   Expect to decrease significantly	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
4. Commercial paper

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
   Expect to increase somewhat	1	6.7%
   Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	53.3%
   Expect to decrease somewhat	6	40.0%
   Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
5. Other short-term funding instruments (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Expect to increase significantly	1	25.0%
   Expect to increase somewhat	1	25.0%
   Expect to remain basically unchanged	2	50.0%
   Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
   Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	4	100.0%

   
   

85. For the remainder of this year, how do you expect the price and nonprice terms your institution faces in obtaining short-term funding through the following instruments to change as a result of possible changes in money markets arising from the MMF reforms?

1. Treasury and agency repo
   1. Price terms (for example, financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	4	17.4%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	39.1%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	10	43.5%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	23	100.0%

      
      
   2. Nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	22	95.7%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	1	4.3%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	23	100.0%

      
      
2. Repo collateralized by fixed-income and equity instruments
   1. Price terms (for example, financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	1	5.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	10	50.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	40.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	1	5.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   2. Nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	3	15.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	17	85.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
3. Certificates of deposit
   1. Price terms (for example, financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	2	14.3%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	7	50.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	4	28.6%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	1	7.1%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
   2. Nonprice terms (for example, maximum maturity)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	7	53.8%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	1	7.7%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
4. Commercial paper
   1. Price terms (for example, financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	3	20.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	8	53.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	3	20.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	1	6.7%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Nonprice terms (for example, maximum maturity)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	1	7.1%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	64.3%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	3	21.4%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	1	7.1%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
5. Other short-term funding instruments (as specified in your answer to question 84E)
   1. Price terms (for example, financing rates)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	1	9.1%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	3	27.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	7	63.6%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase/tighten significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase/tighten somewhat	1	10.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	80.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease somewhat	1	10.0%
      Expect to decrease/ease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	10	100.0%

      
      

86. For the remainder of this year, how do you expect your institution’s funding of each of the short-term instruments from the following types of lenders to change as a result of changes in money markets arising from the MMF reforms?

1. Treasury and agency repo
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	4	19.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	17	81.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	9.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	19	90.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	10.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	17	89.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	4.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	20	90.9%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	4.5%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	9.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	19	90.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	21	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	5.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	18	94.7%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	25.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	3	75.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	4	100.0%

      
      
2. Repo collateralized by other fixed-income and equity instruments
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	11	68.8%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	5	31.3%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	3	16.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	14	77.8%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	5.6%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	3	18.8%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	13	81.3%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	10.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	17	89.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	11.1%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	16	88.9%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	11.8%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	15	88.2%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	17	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	66.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	1	33.3%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
3. Certificates of deposit
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	6	46.2%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	6	46.2%
      Expect to decrease significantly	1	7.7%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	7	53.8%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	4	28.6%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	57.1%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	14.3%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	69.2%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	7.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	10	76.9%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	11	84.6%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	66.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	33.3%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
4. Commercial paper
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	7.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	6	46.2%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	5	38.5%
      Expect to decrease significantly	1	7.7%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	61.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	15.4%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	2	14.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	10	71.4%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	14.3%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	7.7%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	69.2%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	8.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	75.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	2	16.7%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	10	76.9%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	3	23.1%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	50.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	50.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
5. Other funding instruments (as specified in your answer to question 84E)
   1. Money market funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	6	75.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	12.5%
      Expect to decrease significantly	1	12.5%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   2. Other investment funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	12.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	6	75.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	1	12.5%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   3. Corporations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	3	33.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	6	66.7%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	9	100.0%

      
      
   4. Domestic banks

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	100.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   5. Foreign Banking Organizations

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	100.0%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   6. Pension funds

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	12.5%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	7	87.5%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other lenders (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Expect to increase significantly	1	33.3%
      Expect to increase somewhat	1	33.3%
      Expect to remain basically unchanged	1	33.3%
      Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
      Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
      Total	3	100.0%