Summary

The June 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 synthetic prime brokerage (PB) by hedge fund clients to provide levered exposure to assets. The 20 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between May 17, 2016, and May 31, 2016. The core questions asked about changes between March 2016 and May 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:

• One-fifth of respondents reported an increase in resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties and other financial utilities.
• Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were basically unchanged across all classes of counterparties over the past three months. A small fraction of respondents reported that efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable terms had increased somewhat over the same period.
• On net, a small fraction of dealers indicated that the use of financial leverage by hedge funds had decreased somewhat over the past three months. For all other classes of counterparties, use of financial leverage was little changed. In addition, the majority of respondents noted that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with all counterparty types were basically unchanged.
• Dealers reported that initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged for average and most-favored clients. A small fraction of respondents reported that initial margin requirements on foreign exchange derivatives had increased somewhat for average clients. The volume and duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes on OTC derivatives was also basically unchanged over the past three months. However, a small fraction of dealers indicated that the volume of disputes on OTC interest rate derivatives had decreased somewhat.
• With respect to securities financing transactions, small fractions of dealers noted an increase over the past three months in financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark) for average clients on equities and on non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS).
• Small net fractions of dealers reported an increase in demand for funding for non-agency RMBS as well as an increase in demand for term funding of agency RMBS over the past three months. Survey respondents indicated that liquidity and market functioning across all asset classes was basically unchanged.

Special Questions on Synthetic Prime Brokerage

(Questions 81–87)

In the March 2014 survey, respondents were queried about the use of synthetic prime brokerage (PB) by hedge fund clients. Under such arrangements, levered exposure is created through total return swaps and other OTC derivatives rather than through traditional secured financing such as margin lending or repurchase agreements. In the current survey, we revisited questions about the use of synthetic PB arrangements and also asked additional questions related to the hedging of client swaps and counterparty risk-management practices.

With respect to the use of synthetic PB by clients, responses to the special questions revealed the following:

• Survey respondents indicated that the use of synthetic PB varied widely across different types of hedge fund clients.³ Dealers were most likely to cite equity long-short hedge funds that are fundamentally oriented as significant users, with one-third of dealers indicating that synthetic PB was widely employed by a large number of clients and an additional three-fifths of respondents pointing to use by some clients or in some situations. Fractions of dealers ranging between three-fifths and four-fifths reported that synthetic PB was employed significantly by the other three categories of equity funds covered in the survey.⁴ With the exception of credit-oriented funds, at least one-half of respondents reported significant use of synthetic PB for each hedge fund category included in the question. The relative ranking of hedge fund categories by reported use of synthetic PB was very similar to the ranking in the March 2014 survey.
• More than two-fifths of respondents reported that the use of synthetic PB by equity long-short hedge funds (both fundamentally oriented and quantitatively oriented) had increased since March 2014. For other categories of hedge funds, dealers on balance pointed to little change in the use of synthetic PB since March 2014.
• Respondents were also asked about several possible motivations for hedge funds’ use of synthetic PB.⁵ Four-fifths of respondents indicated that access to foreign markets was very important, making it the most important motivation of the options listed. Three-fifths and nearly one-half of dealers pointed to tax considerations and ease in establishing and maintaining short positions, respectively, as very important reasons. These three motivations were also most frequently cited as very important in the March 2014 survey.

Dealers were asked to characterize the composition of the hedge book for client swaps.⁶ Responses revealed the following:

• Four-fifths of respondents reported that their firm’s hedge book for client swaps relies either to a considerable extent or to some extent on offsetting client trades with holdings of cash securities. Fractions of dealers ranging between three-fifths and two-thirds indicated reliance to a similar extent on offsetting trades between client portfolios, on offsetting trades between clients and external swap dealers, and on offsetting client trades with exchange-traded futures and derivatives. Nearly one-half of respondents reported reliance only to some extent on offsetting trades between clients and other lines of business within the firm.
• Most dealers indicated that the composition of their firm’s hedge book has remained broadly unchanged since March 2014.⁷

With respect to dealer management of counterparty risk associated with synthetic PB, responses to the special questions revealed the following:

• All respondents pointed to the collection of initial and variation margin as either the most important or the second most important control in managing counterparty exposure to swap clients. Two-thirds of respondents also pointed to limits on long-short gross notional exposure as an important control, and one-third reported limits based on stress testing or potential future exposure (PFE).⁸ More than one-half of respondents pointed to client net financing balances held in prime brokerage or to client assets held in custody as the second or third most important control.
• On net, one-third of dealers reported that initial margins posted by hedge fund clients on swaps referencing single-name equities had increased somewhat since March 2014. Smaller net fractions of respondents indicated that initial margin on swaps referencing equity indexes and on swaps referencing bespoke equity portfolios had increased somewhat.
• Two-fifths of respondents indicated that initial margin on swaps referencing single-name corporate bonds and on swaps referencing bespoke portfolios of corporate bonds had increased somewhat since March 2014. Interpretation of this finding is subject to the caveat that synthetic financing of corporate debt is less widely used than synthetic financing of equities.⁹

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

 

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

 

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

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

 

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	4	20.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	3	15.0%
To a minimal extent	7	35.0%
Not at all	10	50.0%
Total	20	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	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
Eased somewhat	2	10.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	2	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Eased somewhat	1	5.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	1	50.0%
      2nd Most Important	1	50.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (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	15.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	15	75.0%
Decreased somewhat	4	20.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	95.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	95.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	1	5.9%
Remained basically unchanged	15	88.2%
Eased somewhat	1	5.9%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	17	100.0%

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

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

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	1	100.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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	16	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	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	6.3%
Remained basically unchanged	15	93.8%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	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	15	93.8%
Decreased somewhat	1	6.3%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	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	19	95.0%
Eased somewhat	1	5.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   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	1	100.0%
      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	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	1	100.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

1. Mutual funds

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

   
   
2. ETFs

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

   
   
3. Pension plans

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

   
   
4. Endowments

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

   
   

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	20	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	19	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	19	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	18	94.7%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	19	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	19	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	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	16	94.1%
Eased somewhat	1	5.9%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	17	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	17	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	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	1	100.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	17	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	17	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	17	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	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Eased somewhat	2	10.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	2	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Eased somewhat	1	5.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	1	100.0%
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0%
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	10.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	1	5.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	20	100.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

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

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

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

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

   
   

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

   
   
2. Hedge funds

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

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

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

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

   
   

Back to section top

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

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

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

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

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

   
   
2. Acceptable collateral

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

   
   
3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)

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

   
   
4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9%
   Eased Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   
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	17	94.4%
   Eased Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	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	3	17.6%
   Remained basically unchanged	14	82.4%
   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	1	5.9%
   Remained basically unchanged	15	88.2%
   Decreased somewhat	1	5.9%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	17	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	5.6%
   Remained basically unchanged	17	94.4%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	12	85.7%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	14	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	1	10.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	9	90.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	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	10	100.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	13	92.9%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

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

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

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	10.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	9	90.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	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	10	100.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	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	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Decreased somewhat	2	10.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	11.1%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   
2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3%
   Decreased Somewhat	3	16.7%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	18	100.0%

   
   
3. Equity

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

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

   
   
6. Commodity

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	100.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	100.0%

   
   

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

1. FX

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

   
   
2. Interest rate

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

   
   
3. Equity

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

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

   
   
6. Commodity

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	100.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	10	100.0%

   
   

Back to section top

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9%
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9%
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	18	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	1	5.6%
Improved somewhat	1	5.6%
Remained basically unchanged	15	83.3%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	5.6%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	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	2	12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	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	2	12.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3%
      Total	16	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	12.5%
Remained basically unchanged	14	87.5%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	1	6.3%
Remained basically unchanged	14	87.5%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	6.3%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	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	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0%
      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	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0%
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0%
      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	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	19	95.0%
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.0%
      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	2	10.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	20	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	15.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
Decreased somewhat	1	5.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	84.6%
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.7%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	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%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	3	23.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	76.9%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	76.9%
      Eased Somewhat	2	15.4%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	13	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	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%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	7.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	84.6%
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.7%
      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	11	84.6%
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.7%
      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	1	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	28.6%
Remained basically unchanged	9	64.3%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	21.4%
Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	2	14.3%
Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
Deteriorated somewhat	2	14.3%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	72.7%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	81.8%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	81.8%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	3	27.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	7	63.6%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	72.7%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	81.8%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	81.8%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	72.7%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	27.3%
Remained basically unchanged	6	54.5%
Decreased somewhat	2	18.2%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	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	2	18.2%
Remained basically unchanged	8	72.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	9.1%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	1	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	7	63.6%
Deteriorated somewhat	3	27.3%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	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	10	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	18.2%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	81.8%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	1	9.1%
Improved somewhat	1	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	7	63.6%
Deteriorated somewhat	2	18.2%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	9.1%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	11	100.0%

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	9.1%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	11	100.0%

   
   

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	10	90.9%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	9.1%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	11	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.

Synthetic Prime Brokerage

In the March 2014 survey, respondents were queried about the use of so-called synthetic prime brokerage (PB) by hedge fund clients to provide levered exposure to assets. Under such arrangements, levered exposure is created through total return swaps and other OTC derivatives rather than through traditional secured financing such as margin lending or repurchase agreements. In the current survey, we revisit questions about the use of synthetic PB arrangements and also ask additional questions related to the hedging of client swaps and other risk-management practices. In particular, question 81 seeks information on the current use of synthetic financing by hedge fund clients of different types. Question 82 asks about the reasons clients choose synthetic financing as an alternative to traditional secured financing. Question 83 seeks information on changes in the use of synthetic funding by hedge fund clients of different types since March 2014. Questions 84 and 85 ask about the current composition and changes since March 2014 in the composition of the hedge book for client swaps. Question 86 asks about changes since March 2014 in client posting of initial margin on synthetic PB transactions. Finally, question 87 seeks information on the factors most important in managing counterparty exposure to clients.

81. How would you characterize the current use of synthetic financing by hedge fund clients of each of the following types?

1. Equity long-short hedge funds (fundamentally oriented)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	5	31.3%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	10	62.5%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	0	0.0%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	0	0.0%
   Not employed by such clients	1	6.3%
   Total	16	100.0%

   
   
2. Equity long-short hedge funds (quantitatively oriented)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	4	26.7%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	8	53.3%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	1	6.7%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	1	6.7%
   Not employed by such clients	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
3. Event-driven equity funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	3	18.8%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	7	43.8%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	4	25.0%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	0	0.0%
   Not employed by such clients	2	12.5%
   Total	16	100.0%

   
   
4. Other equity funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	3	18.8%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	9	56.3%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	3	18.8%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	0	0.0%
   Not employed by such clients	1	6.3%
   Total	16	100.0%

   
   
5. Macro-oriented hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	3	20.0%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	6	40.0%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	2	13.3%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	3	20.0%
   Not employed by such clients	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
6. Credit-oriented hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	1	7.1%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	3	21.4%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	3	21.4%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	5	35.7%
   Not employed by such clients	2	14.3%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
7. Emerging market–oriented hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Widely employed by a large number of clients	3	21.4%
   Employed by some clients or in some situations	4	28.6%
   Employed by only a few clients or in a few situations	5	35.7%
   Employed to a minimal extent by such clients	1	7.1%
   Not employed by such clients	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   

82. Considering all of your institution’s hedge fund clients who employ synthetic financing, how important is each of the following reasons in motivating them to do so?

1. Tax considerations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	9	60.0%
   Somewhat important	3	20.0%
   Unimportant	3	20.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
2. Access to foreign markets

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	12	80.0%
   Somewhat important	2	13.3%
   Unimportant	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
3. Ease in establishing and maintaining short positions

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	7	46.7%
   Somewhat important	4	26.7%
   Unimportant	4	26.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
4. Lower cost of funding

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	3	20.0%
   Somewhat important	6	40.0%
   Unimportant	6	40.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
5. Availability of greater leverage

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	5	33.3%
   Somewhat important	5	33.3%
   Unimportant	5	33.3%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
6. Ease in adjusting exposures

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	5	33.3%
   Somewhat important	5	33.3%
   Unimportant	5	33.3%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
7. Ease in establishing exposure to non-dollar-denominated assets in dollars

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Very important	4	26.7%
   Somewhat important	9	60.0%
   Unimportant	2	13.3%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   

83. How would you characterize the change in the use of synthetic financing by hedge fund clients of each of the following types since the first quarter of 2014?

1. Equity long-short hedge funds (fundamentally oriented)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	7.1%
   Increased somewhat	5	35.7%
   Remained basically unchanged	8	57.1%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
2. Equity long-short hedge funds (quantitatively oriented)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	7.1%
   Increased somewhat	6	42.9%
   Remained basically unchanged	7	50.0%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
3. Event-driven equity funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	7.1%
   Increased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Decreased significantly	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
4. Other equity funds

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

   
   
5. Macro-oriented hedge funds

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

   
   
6. Credit-oriented hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	15.4%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	76.9%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	1	7.7%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   
7. Emerging market–oriented hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	14.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Decreased significantly	1	7.1%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   

84. To what extent does your firm’s hedge book for client swaps rely on the following sources of offsetting trades?

1. Offsetting trades between client portfolios

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   To a considerable extent	3	20.0%
   To some extent	7	46.7%
   To a minimal extent	4	26.7%
   Not at all	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
2. Offsetting trades between clients and other lines of business within your firm

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   To a considerable extent	0	0.0%
   To some extent	7	46.7%
   To a minimal extent	5	33.3%
   Not at all	3	20.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
3. Offsetting trades between clients and external swap dealers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   To a considerable extent	4	26.7%
   To some extent	6	40.0%
   To a minimal extent	5	33.3%
   Not at all	0	0.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
4. Offsetting client trades with exchange-traded futures and derivatives

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   To a considerable extent	3	20.0%
   To some extent	6	40.0%
   To a minimal extent	4	26.7%
   Not at all	2	13.3%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
5. Offsetting client trades with holdings of cash securities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   To a considerable extent	5	33.3%
   To some extent	7	46.7%
   To a minimal extent	2	13.3%
   Not at all	1	6.7%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   

85. How has the composition of your hedge book for client swaps changed since March 2014?

1. Offsetting trades between client portfolios

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	2	14.3%
   Increased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
2. Offsetting trades between clients and other lines of business within your firm

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

   
   
3. Offsetting trades between clients and external swap dealers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	1	7.1%
   Increased somewhat	4	28.6%
   Remained basically unchanged	8	57.1%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   
4. Offsetting client trades with exchange-traded futures and derivatives

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

   
   
5. Offsetting client trades with holdings of cash securities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	14.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	71.4%
   Decreased somewhat	2	14.3%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	14	100.0%

   
   

86. How have initial margins posted by your hedge fund clients changed since March 2014 on swaps referencing each of the following types of cash instruments?

1. Single-name equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	5	38.5%
   Remained basically unchanged	7	53.8%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.7%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   
2. Equity indexes

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	3	23.1%
   Remained basically unchanged	10	76.9%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   
3. Bespoke equity portfolios

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	4	30.8%
   Remained basically unchanged	8	61.5%
   Decreased somewhat	1	7.7%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   
4. Single-name corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	3	42.9%
   Remained basically unchanged	4	57.1%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   
5. Corporate bond indexes

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	14.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	6	85.7%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   
6. Bespoke portfolios of corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased significantly	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	3	42.9%
   Remained basically unchanged	4	57.1%
   Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   Decreased significantly	0	0.0%
   Total	7	100.0%

   
   

87. How does your institution manage counterparty exposure to swap clients?

1. Collection of initial and variation margin

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Important	12	80.0%
   2nd Most Important	3	20.0%
   3rd Most Important	0	0.0%
   Total	15	100.0%

   
   
2. Limits on long-short gross notional exposure

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Important	1	11.1%
   2nd Most Important	4	44.4%
   3rd Most Important	4	44.4%
   Total	9	100.0%

   
   
3. Client net financing balances held in prime brokerage

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Important	0	0.0%
   2nd Most Important	3	60.0%
   3rd Most Important	2	40.0%
   Total	5	100.0%

   
   
4. Client assets held in custody

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Important	0	0.0%
   2nd Most Important	2	40.0%
   3rd Most Important	3	60.0%
   Total	5	100.0%

   
   
5. Other (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Important	2	33.3%
   2nd Most Important	3	50.0%
   3rd Most Important	1	16.7%
   Total	6	100.0%