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

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms
December 2016

Summary

The December 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 use of central clearing services for OTC derivatives and the ease of porting client portfolios from another clearing agent. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted between November 15, 2016, and November 28, 2016. The core questions asked about changes between September 2016 and November 2016.1

Core Questions
(Questions 1–79)2

Survey respondents generally reported little change in conditions over the past three months in pricing and across markets and instruments covered in the core questions of the survey. The responses, however, offered a few insights regarding recent developments in dealer-intermediated markets:

  • A small fraction of dealers indicated that the use of financial leverage by hedge funds has increased somewhat over the past three months. For all other classes of counterparties, use of financial leverage was little changed.
  • One-fifth of respondents indicated that the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with dealers and other intermediaries has increased in the past three months. Smaller fractions indicated such an increase with other classes of counterparties. One-fifth of dealers reported an increase in the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes on contracts related to interest rates and foreign exchange.
  • With respect to securities financing transactions, one-fifth of dealers, on net, noted an increase in financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark) over the past three months for average and preferred clients on high-grade and high-yield corporate bonds. Smaller fractions of respondents reported an increase in financing rates for other collateral types. One-fifth of dealers indicated an increase in the maximum amount of funding provided for average clients on equities.
  • More than one-fifth of respondents, on net, reported an increase in funding demand for high-yield corporate bonds and equities. One-fifth of dealers responded that liquidity and functioning in the underlying markets have improved for commercial mortgage-backed securities and consumer asset-backed securities.

Special Questions on Central Clearing
(Questions 81–86)

In the September 2015 survey, respondents were queried about the use of central counterparty clearing services for OTC derivatives denominated in U.S. dollars (USD). In the current survey, we revisited questions about the use of central counterparty clearing services for derivatives that are eligible for clearing but for which clearing is not mandated. We also asked additional questions related to risk management and the ease of porting portfolios for clearing of all USD-denominated OTC derivatives.

With respect to clients’ use of central clearing services for derivatives that are eligible for clearing but for which clearing is not mandated, responses to the special questions revealed the following:

  • Nearly two-thirds of respondents indicated that their clients’ use of central clearing services for these derivatives has increased somewhat since September 2015. In contrast, in the September 2015 survey, a net fraction of only one-tenth of the respondents reported an increase since the beginning of 2014 in their clients’ use of clearing services for OTC derivatives that are not subject to mandatory clearing but are eligible to clear.
  • The most important reasons for the increase since September 2015 were counterparty risk mitigation associated with central clearing, expansion in the types of clearing-eligible products, and better prices for cleared transactions than for noncleared transactions.3 Dealers may offer lower prices on cleared transactions because the lower capital requirements on such transactions make them more desirable.
With respect to dealers’ management of counterparty credit exposures that arise from serving as clearing agents, respondents indicated the following:
  • Nearly all respondents pointed to margin requirements as being the most important tool. Other important tools were netting with the same client, monitoring concentrated exposures across clients, and avoiding or limiting activity with certain clients.4
With respect to the ease of porting portfolios from another clearing agent, responses revealed the following:
  • Three-fifths of dealers responded that it would take between one week and one month to absorb the OTC derivatives portfolios of large clients that need to be ported from another clearing agent when the client is not already one of theirs. One-fourth indicated a porting time of more than one month, and a small fraction indicated a porting time of between two days and one week.
  • Two-fifths of respondents indicated that it would take between two days and one week to absorb the OTC derivatives portfolios of large clients that need to be ported from another clearing agent when the client is already one of theirs. One-fourth and one-fifth of dealers responded two days or fewer and between one week and one month, respectively.

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

 

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

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

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

Accessible version

 

Results of the December 2016 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

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

 


Counterparty Types

In this Section:

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

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


Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 23 100.0%
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 3 13.0%
Remained basically unchanged 19 82.6%
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 0 0.0%
To some extent 4 17.4%
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 2 8.7%
Remained basically unchanged 20 87.0%
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 21 91.3%
Eased somewhat 2 8.7%
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 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

    8. Other (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%

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 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 4 17.4%
Remained basically unchanged 19 82.6%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
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 1 4.3%
Remained basically unchanged 22 95.7%
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 21 91.3%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
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 2 10.5%
Remained basically unchanged 16 84.2%
Eased somewhat 1 5.3%
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 0 0.0%
Tightened somewhat 1 5.3%
Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 19 100.0%

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 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 2 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%

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

  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 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%

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 16 84.2%
Decreased somewhat 2 10.5%
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 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 23 100.0%
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 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 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 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 2 8.7%
Remained basically unchanged 21 91.3%
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 4.8%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

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%


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 22 100.0%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 22 100.0%

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

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%

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 0 0.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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 21 100.0%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
Eased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
      Number of Respondents Percent
      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 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 21 100.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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

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


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 2 8.7%
Remained basically unchanged 21 91.3%
Eased somewhat 0 0.0%
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 22 95.7%
Eased somewhat 1 4.3%
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 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

    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 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      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 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 5 22.7%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 68.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.1%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 22 100.0%

  2. Hedge funds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.1%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 81.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.1%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 22 100.0%

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

  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 4.8%
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 86.4%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.1%
    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 1 5.6%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.6%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

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 5 22.7%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 77.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 22 100.0%

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

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

  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  5. Insurance companies
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 4.5%
    Increased Somewhat 3 13.6%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 81.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 22 100.0%

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 3 15.8%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

Back to section top


Over-the-Counter Derivatives

In this Section:

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

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


New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  2. Acceptable collateral
    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%

  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 20 100.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  4. Triggers and covenants
    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 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 21 100.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

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


Initial Margin

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 2 9.5%
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5%
    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 2 10.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 18 90.0%
    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 1 4.8%
    Remained basically unchanged 19 90.5%
    Decreased somewhat 1 4.8%
    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 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 1 5.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0%
    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 19 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 12 92.3%
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.7%
    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%

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 1 7.1%
    Remained basically unchanged 12 85.7%
    Decreased somewhat 1 7.1%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

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


Nonstandard Collateral

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

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


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

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

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 4 19.0%
    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 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.6%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.6%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 14.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

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

  7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.7%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 13 100.0%

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

  1. FX
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0%
    Increased Somewhat 3 15.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  2. Interest rate
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 4 19.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

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

  4. Credit referencing corporates
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 7.1%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.1%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

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

  7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 7.7%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 13 100.0%

Back to section top


Securities Financing

In this Section:

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

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


High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
      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 4 20.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
      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 0 0.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
      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 4 20.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
      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 0 0.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 0 0.0%

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 2 10.5%
Remained basically unchanged 15 78.9%
Decreased somewhat 2 10.5%
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 1 5.3%
Remained basically unchanged 18 94.7%
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 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 19 95.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 1 5.0%
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 5.9%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4%
      Eased Somewhat 2 11.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.9%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 29.4%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 64.7%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.9%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.9%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4%
      Eased Somewhat 2 11.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.9%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 5 29.4%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 70.6%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 17 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 4 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 2 10.0%
Remained basically unchanged 16 80.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 2 10.0%
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 4 19.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0%
      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 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2%
      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 3 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 3 14.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7%
      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 19 90.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2%
      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 17 81.0%
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 21 100.0%

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

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

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


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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

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

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 89.5%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 4.8%
Remained basically unchanged 18 85.7%
Deteriorated somewhat 2 9.5%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%


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 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 6.3%
Remained basically unchanged 14 87.5%
Decreased somewhat 1 6.3%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 16 100.0%

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 0 0.0%
Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8%
Decreased somewhat 1 6.3%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 16 100.0%

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 1 6.3%
Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8%
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 16 100.0%


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 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 1 6.3%
Remained basically unchanged 15 93.8%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 16 100.0%

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

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 3 18.8%
Remained basically unchanged 13 81.3%
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 16 100.0%


Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 7.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    2. Maximum maturity
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    3. Haircuts
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 7.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 92.3%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 13 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 3 20.0%
Remained basically unchanged 12 80.0%
Deteriorated somewhat 0 0.0%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 15 100.0%


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 1 5.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    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 16 94.1%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9%
    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 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 16 100.0%

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

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

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 1 5.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 17 100.0%

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

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 6.3%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 16 100.0%

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

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

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.


In the September 2015 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, respondents were queried about the use of central counterparty clearing services for over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives denominated in U.S. dollars (USD). In questions 82 and 83, we revisit the use of central counterparty clearing services for derivatives that are eligible for clearing but for which clearing is not mandated. Questions 84 through 86 ask additional information related to risk management and the ease of porting portfolios for clearing of all USD-denominated OTC derivatives. Note that for the purpose of these questions, we use the term “OTC derivatives” to refer to all types of derivatives contracts that have traditionally been bilaterally negotiated prior to Dodd-Frank’s Title VII OTC derivatives reform, irrespective of whether the trading of some such contracts has moved to exchanges or electronic trading platforms.

81. Do you provide central clearing services for your clients in USD-denominated OTC derivatives?

Number of Respondents Percent
Yes 14 60.9%
No 9 39.1%
Total 23 100.0%

82. How has your clients’ use of central clearing services for USD-denominated OTC derivatives that are eligible for clearing at one or more central counterparties, but for which clearing is not mandated, changed since September 2015?

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 9 64.3%
Remained basically unchanged 5 35.7%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 14 100.0%

83. To the extent that your clients’ use of central clearing services for USD-denominated OTC derivatives that are eligible for clearing, but for which clearing is not mandated, has changed relative to September 2015 (as reflected in your response to question 81), what are the most important reasons for this change?

  1. Possible reasons for increase in use
    1. Expansion in the types of clearing-eligible products
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 2 40.0%
      2nd Most Important 2 40.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    2. Differential prices on cleared and noncleared transactions due to differences in capital requirements
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 16.7%
      2nd Most Important 3 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 2 33.3%
      Total 6 100.0%

    3. Anticipation of higher margin requirements for noncleared transactions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 33.3%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 2 66.7%
      Total 3 100.0%

    4. Counterparty risk mitigation associated with central clearing
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 3 60.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 20.0%
      3rd Most Important 1 20.0%
      Total 5 100.0%

    5. Margin efficiency (for example, through netting benefits) or other cost savings for cleared transactions
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 33.3%
      2nd Most Important 1 33.3%
      3rd Most Important 1 33.3%
      Total 3 100.0%

    6. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 50.0%
      2nd Most Important 1 50.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 2 100.0%


  2. Possible reasons for decrease in use
    1. Lack of access to clearing services
      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. Desire to reduce risk exposure to central 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%

    3. Higher margin requirements or other costs for cleared transactions
      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. 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%



84. What are the most important tools your firm uses to manage the counterparty credit exposure to your clients that arises from serving as a clearing agent for all clearable USD-denominated OTC derivatives?

  1. Price adjustments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Most Important 0 0.0%
    2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
    3rd Most Important 1 100.0%
    Total 1 100.0%

  2. Margin requirements
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Most Important 13 92.9%
    2nd Most Important 1 7.1%
    3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

  3. Netting with the same client
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Most Important 1 14.3%
    2nd Most Important 5 71.4%
    3rd Most Important 1 14.3%
    Total 7 100.0%

  4. Netting across clients
    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. Avoiding or limiting activity with certain clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Most Important 0 0.0%
    2nd Most Important 5 71.4%
    3rd Most Important 2 28.6%
    Total 7 100.0%

  6. Monitoring concentrated exposures across clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Most Important 0 0.0%
    2nd Most Important 1 16.7%
    3rd Most Important 5 83.3%
    Total 6 100.0%

  7. Other (please specify)
    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%


85. How quickly could you absorb the USD-denominated OTC derivatives portfolios of large clients that need to be ported from another clearing agent when the client is not already one of yours?

Number of Respondents Percent
Two days or fewer 0 0.0%
More than two days but less than a week 2 14.3%
More than a week but less than a month 8 57.1%
More than a month 4 28.6%
Total 14 100.0%

86. How quickly could you absorb the USD-denominated OTC derivatives portfolios of large clients that need to be ported from another clearing agent when the client is already one of yours?

Number of Respondents Percent
Two days or fewer 4 28.6%
More than two days but less than a week 6 42.9%
More than a week but less than a month 3 21.4%
More than a month 1 7.1%
Total 14 100.0%


Footnotes

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

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

3. Respondents were asked to choose at most three reasons from the following: expansion in the types of clearing-eligible products, differential prices on cleared and noncleared transactions due to differences in capital requirements, anticipation of higher margin requirements for noncleared transactions, counterparty risk mitigation associated with central clearing, margin efficiency (for example, through netting benefits) or other cost savings for cleared transactions, and other. Return to text

4. Price adjustments and netting across clients were the other choices given in the survey. Very few respondents chose either of these options. Return to text

Back to Top

Last update: December 29, 2016