The Fed - SCOOS

Current Release PDF

Release Date: March 23, 2017

Summary

The March 2017 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 exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that invest in fixed-income and equity markets by the respondents' various client types. The 22 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between February 14, 2017, and February 27, 2017. The core questions asked about changes between December 2016 and February 2017.¹

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 the past three months in dealer-intermediated markets:

Nearly all dealers reported that resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries have remained basically unchanged, while a small fraction noted an increase with regard to central counterparties and other financial utilities (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit). About one-fifth of dealers noted that changes to practices of central counterparties, such as margin requirements, have influenced the terms they applied to uncleared derivative transactions with clients at least to some extent.
Respondents indicated that price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were little changed across all classes of counterparties (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit).
Similarly, the use of financial leverage by all classes of counterparties was also reported to have remained unchanged by almost all respondents (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage).
With respect to securities financing transactions, dealers generally reported that financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark) over the past three months had remained basically unchanged across various collateral types. About one-third and one-fifth of respondents noted an increase in funding demand for equities and high-yield corporate bonds, respectively, in part reflecting substantial increases in the prices of these assets (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning).
Regarding liquidity and market functioning, more than one-third of dealers that participate in the consumer asset-backed securities market indicated that liquidity and functioning had improved, while about one-fourth noted such improvement in the non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities market. Smaller net fractions of dealers suggested that liquidity and functioning in high-grade corporate bonds and commercial mortgage-backed securities have improved.

Special Questions on the Use of ETFs
(Questions 81–90)

In the December 2013 survey, respondents were queried about their clients' use of ETFs that invest in fixed-income assets. The special questions in the March survey revisit this topic and also solicit similar information on the use of equity ETFs by different types of clients. In addition, the special questions ask about the reasons behind the changes in clients' use of fixed-income and equity ETFs since 2013 and inquire about dealers' expectations for changes in the use of these instruments, through the end of this year, as a result of the Department of Labor's Fiduciary Rule and the Securities and Exchange Commission's liquidity risk-management rules.

With regard to clients' use of fixed-income ETFs, dealers reported the following:

About one-half and three-fifths of respondents indicated that separately managed accounts and hedge funds, respectively, use fixed-income ETFs at least to some extent. Smaller but significant fractions of dealers reported that mutual funds, pension plans, endowments, and insurance companies use fixed-income ETFs.³
Similar to responses in the December 2013 survey, for each type of client, more than one-half of dealers indicated that fixed-income ETFs are used by their clients for both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positioning, as opposed to predominantly one of the two purposes. Slightly more than two-fifths of respondents reported that their hedge fund clients use fixed-income ETFs predominantly or almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions.
Net fractions of around three-fifths of respondents noted that the use of fixed-income ETFs has increased since December 2013 by each of their client types (that is, hedge funds, mutual funds, pension plans, endowments, insurance companies, and separately managed accounts). Of the respondents who noted a change in ETF use, almost all cited client-specific factors (such as changes to risk-management practices or business model) and other financial market developments as at least somewhat important drivers of the change. In addition, a bit more than one-half of the respondents pointed to the expected implementations of the liquidity risk-management and fiduciary rules as at least somewhat important reasons for the change. Some dealers also cited other factors such as lower fees, liquidity considerations, and the ease of use of these instruments as reasons for the change.
One-fifth to one-half of dealers indicated that they anticipate various types of clients will increase their use of fixed-income ETFs as a result of the new fiduciary and liquidity risk-management rules through the end of this year.

With respect to clients' use of equity ETFs, respondents indicated the following:

Nearly three-fifths to more than three-fifths of respondents indicated that equity ETFs are used at least to some extent across client types. Of note, almost all respondents indicated that hedge fund clients use equity ETFs in managing their portfolios to at least some extent.
Similar to the responses to the questions about clients' use of fixed-income ETFs, net fractions of one-half or more of respondents reported that these instruments are used for both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positioning by all client types. A net fraction of about two-fifths of dealers indicated that hedge funds use equity ETFs predominantly or almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions.
Net fractions of two-fifths or more of respondents noted that the use of equity ETFs had increased somewhat or substantially since December 2013 by each of their client types. As is the case for fixed-income ETFs, of the respondents who noted a change in their clients' use of equity ETFs over the past three years, almost all cited client-specific factors such as changes to risk-management practices or business model as at least somewhat important drivers of the change. Dealers also pointed to the expected implementation of the fiduciary rule (cited by approximately one-half of dealers) and the liquidity risk-management rule (cited by approximately one-third of dealers) as at least somewhat important in driving the change.
In contrast with responses on fixed-income ETFs, only small fractions of dealers indicated that they expect their clients' use of equity ETFs to increase through the end of the year as a result of the new fiduciary and liquidity risk-management rules.

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

For questions that ask about credit terms, net percentages equal the percentage of institutions that reported tightening terms ("tightened considerably" or "tightened somewhat") minus the percentage of institutions that reported easing terms ("eased considerably" or "eased somewhat"). For questions that ask about demand, net fractions equal the percentage of institutions that reported increased demand ("increased considerably" or "increased somewhat") minus the percentage of institutions that reported decreased demand ("decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat"). Return to text
Question 80, not discussed here, was optional and allowed respondents to provide additional comments. Return to text
In the December 2013 survey, about one-third to two-fifths of dealers reported some use of ETFs by their clients. Note that, at that time, no dealers pointed to a significant use of these instruments; however, in the current survey a small fraction of respondents cited significant use of fixed-income ETFs by their clients. Return to text

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

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

Accessible version

Results of the March 2017 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	1	4.5%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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	1	4.5%
Increased somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	19	86.4%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a considerable extent	1	4.5%
To some extent	3	13.6%
To a minimal extent	10	45.5%
Not at all	8	36.4%
Total	22	100.0%

Hedge Funds

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

More-aggressive competition from other institutions

	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%

Other (please specify)

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	20	90.9%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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	4.5%
Remained basically unchanged	20	90.9%
Decreased somewhat	1	4.5%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.6%
Remained basically unchanged	19	86.4%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	20	90.9%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

More-aggressive competition from other institutions

	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%

Other

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	1	5.6%
Remained basically unchanged	17	94.4%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	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	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	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	18	100.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	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	1	4.5%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	22	100.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

Other

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

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

Other

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

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

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

Mutual funds

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

ETFs

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

Pension plans

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

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	1	4.5%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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	1	5.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	19	95.0%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
Eased somewhat	1	5.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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

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

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%

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%

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%

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%

Other

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

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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%

Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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%

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%

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%

Other

	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%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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

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

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

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%

More-aggressive competition from other institutions

	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%

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	1	5.3%
Remained basically unchanged	18	94.7%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

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

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

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

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

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	20	90.9%
Eased somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	21	95.5%
Eased somewhat	1	4.5%
Eased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

Possible reasons for tightening

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%

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%

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

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

Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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%

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%

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%

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%

Possible reasons for easing

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%

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%

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

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

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%

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%

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%

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%

Other

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	2	9.1%
Remained basically unchanged	20	90.9%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

Hedge funds

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

Trading REITs

	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%

Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments

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

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5%
Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
Total	19	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
Increased Somewhat	2	10.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Nonfinancial corporations

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	2	11.1%
Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9%
Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
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?

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	1	5.0%
Decreased Considerably	1	5.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Hedge funds

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

Trading REITs

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

Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments

	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%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5%
Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
Total	19	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
Increased Somewhat	2	10.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Nonfinancial corporations

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	5.6%
Increased Somewhat	1	5.6%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3%
Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	18	100.0%

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?

Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	4	20.0%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0%
Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Acceptable collateral

	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%

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

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

Triggers and covenants

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

Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)

	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%

Other

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

Initial Margin

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

Initial margin requirements for average clients

	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%

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

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

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

Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

Initial margin requirements for average clients

	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%

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

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

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?

Initial margin requirements for average clients

	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%

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

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

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?

Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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?

Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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?

Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

Nonstandard Collateral

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	13.6%
Remained basically unchanged	17	77.3%
Decreased somewhat	2	9.1%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	22	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?

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
Increased Somewhat	2	10.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	78.9%
Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Interest rate

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	4.8%
Increased Somewhat	2	9.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2%
Decreased Somewhat	2	9.5%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	100.0%

Equity

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	1	5.3%
Increased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5%
Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
Total	19	100.0%

Credit referencing corporates

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

Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

Commodity

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
Increased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased Somewhat	2	10.5%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Interest rate

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
Increased Somewhat	2	9.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	76.2%
Decreased Somewhat	3	14.3%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	100.0%

Equity

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
Increased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Decreased Considerably	1	5.3%
Total	19	100.0%

Credit referencing corporates

	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%

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	93.3%
Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7%
Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Commodity

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

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

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

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.

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

Terms for average clients

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%

Maximum maturity

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

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%

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

	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%

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

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%

Maximum maturity

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

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%

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%

Other

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	3	15.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	4	19.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	76.2%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	4.8%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	21	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?

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

Haircuts

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

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	13	81.3%
Eased Somewhat	2	12.5%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

Haircuts

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3%
Remained Basically Unchanged	15	93.8%
Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

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	1	6.3%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

Other

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	4	20.0%
Remained basically unchanged	16	80.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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	3	15.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	18	90.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	1	5.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

	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%

Maximum maturity

	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%

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%

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	90.0%
Eased Somewhat	2	10.0%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	100.0%

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

	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%

Maximum maturity

	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%

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%

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

	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%

Other

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	6	30.0%
Remained basically unchanged	14	70.0%
Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
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?

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Eased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5%
Remained Basically Unchanged	16	84.2%
Eased Somewhat	1	5.3%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	19	100.0%

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	1	5.0%
Remained basically unchanged	17	85.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	2	10.0%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	20	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?

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

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

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

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

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

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

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

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

Maximum maturity

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

Haircuts

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

Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)

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

Other

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased considerably	0	0.0%
Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
Remained basically unchanged	14	93.3%
Decreased somewhat	1	6.7%
Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

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

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

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

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Improved considerably	0	0.0%
Improved somewhat	4	26.7%
Remained basically unchanged	9	60.0%
Deteriorated somewhat	2	13.3%
Deteriorated considerably	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

Terms for average clients

Maximum amount of funding

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

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%

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%

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	10	90.9%
Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

Other

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

Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship

Maximum amount of funding

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

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%

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%

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	10	90.9%
Eased Somewhat	1	9.1%
Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

Other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

High-grade corporate bonds

	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%

High-yield corporate bonds

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

Equities

	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%

Agency RMBS

	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%

Non-agency RMBS

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

CMBS

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

Consumer ABS

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

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

High-grade corporate bonds

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

High-yield corporate bonds

	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%

Equities

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

Agency RMBS

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

Non-agency RMBS

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

CMBS

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

Consumer ABS

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

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 on the Use of ETFs¹

In the December 2013 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, respondents were queried about the use of exchange traded funds (ETFs) investing in fixed-income assets by different types of clients. In questions 81 to 83, we revisit your clients’ use of fixed-income ETFs. Questions 84 and 85 ask for additional information related to the reasons behind the changes in the use of fixed-income ETFs since 2013 and your expectations for changes through the end of this year. Finally, questions 86 through 90 are similar to the preceding five questions, but they focus on your clients’ use of ETFs investing in equity markets.

81. At present, to what extent do your institution’s clients of each of the following types make use of ETFs investing in fixed-income assets?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	6.3%
To some extent	9	56.3%
To a minimal extent	6	37.5%
Total	16	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	7.1%
To some extent	4	28.6%
To a minimal extent	9	64.3%
Total	14	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	2	14.3%
To some extent	3	21.4%
To a minimal extent	9	64.3%
Total	14	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	8.3%
To some extent	2	16.7%
To a minimal extent	9	75.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	7.7%
To some extent	4	30.8%
To a minimal extent	8	61.5%
Total	13	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	7.7%
To some extent	6	46.2%
To a minimal extent	6	46.2%
Total	13	100.0%

82. To the extent that your institution’s clients do make use of ETFs investing in fixed-income assets (as reflected in your response to question 81), how do they utilize these instruments in managing their portfolios?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	57.1%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	5	35.7%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	1	7.1%
Total	14	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	3	25.0%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	7	58.3%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	2	16.7%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	1	7.7%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	2	15.4%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	9	69.2%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	7.7%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	13	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	1	8.3%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	2	16.7%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	66.7%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	8.3%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	2	18.2%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	72.7%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	9.1%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	1	8.3%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	2	16.7%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	66.7%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	8.3%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

83. Since December 2013, how has the use of ETFs investing in fixed-income assets by your institution’s clients of each of the following types changed?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	13.3%
Increased somewhat	7	46.7%
Remained basically unchanged	4	26.7%
Decreased somewhat	2	13.3%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	14.3%
Increased somewhat	6	42.9%
Remained basically unchanged	5	35.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	14.3%
Increased somewhat	7	50.0%
Remained basically unchanged	4	28.6%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	15.4%
Increased somewhat	6	46.2%
Remained basically unchanged	4	30.8%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.7%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	13	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	16.7%
Increased somewhat	6	50.0%
Remained basically unchanged	3	25.0%
Decreased somewhat	1	8.3%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	16.7%
Increased somewhat	5	41.7%
Remained basically unchanged	3	25.0%
Decreased somewhat	2	16.7%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

84. To the extent that your institution’s clients’ use of fixed-income ETFs has increased or decreased over the past three years (as reflected in your response to question 83), how important are the following reasons for the change for that instrument?

Expected implementation of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	1	9.1%
Important	1	9.1%
Somewhat important	4	36.4%
Not important	5	45.5%
Total	11	100.0%

Expected implementation of the SEC’s Liquidity Risk-Management Rules

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	0	0.0%
Important	2	18.2%
Somewhat important	4	36.4%
Not important	5	45.5%
Total	11	100.0%

Client-specific factors (for example, changes to risk-management practices or business model)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	1	9.1%
Important	6	54.5%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	1	9.1%
Total	11	100.0%

Other financial market developments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	2	18.2%
Important	4	36.4%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	2	18.2%
Total	11	100.0%

Other reasons (for example, fee and cost considerations; please specify)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	3	27.3%
Important	1	9.1%
Somewhat important	2	18.2%
Not important	5	45.5%
Total	11	100.0%

85. For this coming year, how do you expect your institution’s clients’ use of fixed-income ETFs to change as a result of the new fiduciary and liquidity risk-management rules?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	3	21.4%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	11	78.6%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	3	25.0%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	75.0%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	3	25.0%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	9	75.0%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	3	27.3%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	72.7%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	5	50.0%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	5	50.0%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	10	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	4	33.3%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	66.7%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

86. At present, to what extent do your institution’s clients of each of the following types make use of equity ETFs?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	5	27.8%
To some extent	12	66.7%
To a minimal extent	1	5.6%
Total	18	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	4	26.7%
To some extent	6	40.0%
To a minimal extent	5	33.3%
Total	15	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	2	13.3%
To some extent	10	66.7%
To a minimal extent	3	20.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	1	7.7%
To some extent	10	76.9%
To a minimal extent	2	15.4%
Total	13	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	0	0.0%
To some extent	8	57.1%
To a minimal extent	6	42.9%
Total	14	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
To a significant extent	2	18.2%
To some extent	7	63.6%
To a minimal extent	2	18.2%
Total	11	100.0%

87. To the extent that your institution’s clients do make use of ETFs investing in public equities (as reflected in your response to question 86), how do they utilize these instruments in managing their portfolios?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	1	6.3%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	50.0%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	6	37.5%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	1	6.3%
Total	16	100.0%

Mutual funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	3	21.4%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	9	64.3%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	7.1%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	1	7.1%
Total	14	100.0%

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	5	33.3%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	9	60.0%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	6.7%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	6	42.9%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	7	50.0%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	7.1%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	0	0.0%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	4	33.3%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	7	58.3%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	1	8.3%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions	1	8.3%
Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions	3	25.0%
For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions	8	66.7%
Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

88. Since December 2013, how has the use of ETFs investing in public equities by your institution’s clients of each of the following types changed?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	1	5.9%
Increased somewhat	7	41.2%
Remained basically unchanged	7	41.2%
Decreased somewhat	1	5.9%
Decreased substantially	1	5.9%
Total	17	100.0%

Mutual funds

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

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	13.3%
Increased somewhat	5	33.3%
Remained basically unchanged	7	46.7%
Decreased somewhat	1	6.7%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	15	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	14.3%
Increased somewhat	5	35.7%
Remained basically unchanged	6	42.9%
Decreased somewhat	1	7.1%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Insurance companies

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

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Increased substantially	2	16.7%
Increased somewhat	3	25.0%
Remained basically unchanged	6	50.0%
Decreased somewhat	1	8.3%
Decreased substantially	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

89. To the extent that your institution’s clients’ use of equity ETFs has increased or decreased over the past three years (as reflected in your response to question 88), how important are the following reasons for the change for that instrument?

Expected implementation of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	1	9.1%
Important	1	9.1%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	6	54.5%
Total	11	100.0%

Expected implementation of the SEC’s Liquidity Risk-Management Rules

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	0	0.0%
Important	1	9.1%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	7	63.6%
Total	11	100.0%

Client-specific factors (for example, changes to risk-management practices or business model)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	1	9.1%
Important	5	45.5%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	2	18.2%
Total	11	100.0%

Other financial market developments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	1	9.1%
Important	4	36.4%
Somewhat important	3	27.3%
Not important	3	27.3%
Total	11	100.0%

Other reasons (for example, fee and cost considerations; please specify)

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Very important	5	45.5%
Important	1	9.1%
Somewhat important	2	18.2%
Not important	3	27.3%
Total	11	100.0%

90. For this coming year, how do you expect your institution’s clients’ use of equity ETFs to change as a result of the new fiduciary and liquidity risk-management rules?

Hedge funds

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	1	6.3%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	15	93.8%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	16	100.0%

Mutual funds

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

Pension plans

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	1	7.1%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	13	92.9%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	14	100.0%

Endowments

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	1	7.7%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	12	92.3%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	13	100.0%

Insurance companies

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	0	0.0%
Expect to increase somewhat	1	8.3%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	11	91.7%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	12	100.0%

Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

	Number of Respondents	Percent
Expect to increase significantly	1	9.1%
Expect to increase somewhat	2	18.2%
Expect to remain basically unchanged	8	72.7%
Expect to decrease somewhat	0	0.0%
Expect to decrease significantly	0	0.0%
Total	11	100.0%

The 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. Return to text

Last Update: March 23, 2017

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey

Current Release PDF

Summary

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

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

Results of the March 2017 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

Counterparty Types

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

Hedge Funds

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

Insurance Companies

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

Nonfinancial Corporations

Mark and Collateral Disputes

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

Initial Margin

Nonstandard Collateral

Mark and Collateral Disputes

Securities Financing

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

Mark and Collateral Disputes

Optional Question

Special Questions on the Use of ETFs1

Special Questions on the Use of ETFs¹