Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The September 2018 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 potential effects of hypothetical future changes in the interest rate environment on the price and nonprice terms for financing provided to clients and on the positioning of different classes of clients for such changes. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between August 21, 2018, and August 31, 2018. The core questions asked about changes between June 2018 and August 2018.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

Responses to the core questions in the September survey offered a few insights on recent developments in dealer-intermediated markets. With regard to the credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types across the entire range of securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

• Price and nonprice terms for financing were basically unchanged for all classes of counterparties (see the exhibit Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit).
• In providing credit to their trading real estate investment trust (REIT) clients, a small fraction of respondents reported that efforts by clients to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms had increased somewhat over the past three months.
• Small net fractions of respondents indicated that the volume as well as duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with other dealers had declined somewhat. Declines in the duration of disputes with insurance companies and nonfinancial corporations were also noted by a small fraction of respondents.

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, on net, dealers indicated little change over the past three months (see the exhibit Use of Financial Leverage) for all classes of counterparties.

With regard to OTC derivatives markets, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged, on net, for average and most-favored clients.
• A small fraction of respondents indicated that the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes on equity contracts had decreased.

With respect to securities financing transactions, respondents indicated the following:

• Nearly one-third of respondents indicated a decrease in funding demand for equities (see the exhibit Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning) over the past three months. A smaller fraction of respondents indicated decreased demand for term funding (that is, funding with a maturity greater than 30 days) of non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities.
• On net, one-fifth of dealers reported a decrease in financing rates for equities. Smaller net fractions of respondents indicated a decrease in financing rates for high-grade corporate bonds and (for preferred clients) for high-yield corporate bonds.
• Across asset classes, survey responses indicated that liquidity and functioning, as well as the volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes, have changed little in the past three months.³

Special Questions
(Questions 81-88)

Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. Treasury yield curve has shifted upward in level while flattening in slope. In the special questions for the survey this quarter, dealers were queried about the potential effects of hypothetical future changes in the interest rate environment on the price and nonprice terms for financing provided to clients and on the positioning of different classes of clients for such changes.

The first scenario specified a moderate inversion of the yield curve by the end of 2018. Under this scenario, the 10-year yield falls below the 3-month yield while the level of the 2-year yield remains roughly unchanged relative to the present. Responses revealed the following:

• Small net fractions of respondents indicated that price and nonprice terms would tighten somewhat under the scenario. The most cited reasons were that the scenario entails higher internal treasury charges for funding, that the scenario is associated with worsening in general market liquidity and functioning, and that the scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with deterioration in the financial strength of counterparties.
• On net, over two-fifths of respondents reported that insurance company clients and pension plans and endowments were more typically net long with respect to this scenario than net short.⁴ Net fractions of roughly one-third and one-fifth of respondents indicated that nonfinancial corporations and trading REIT clients, respectively, were more typically net long as well.
• With respect to fixed-income and global macro hedge fund clients, responses to the question on client positioning were quite diverse. On balance, it appears that roughly equal proportions of hedge fund clients are net long and net short.

The second scenario specified a moderate parallel shift upward in the yield curve by the end of 2018. Under this scenario, the slope of the yield curve remains approximately unchanged relative to the present. Responses revealed the following:

• On net, respondents indicated that price and nonprice terms for financing would remain basically unchanged under the scenario.
• Nearly one-half of respondents reported that nonfinancial corporate clients were more typically net long with respect to this scenario than net short. For other client types, responses to the question on client positioning were more diverse. On net, one-fourth of dealers indicated that fixed-income hedge fund clients were more typically net long than net short. A smaller net fraction of respondents indicated that global macro hedge fund clients were more typically net long than net short.

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

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

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

3. Note that survey respondents were instructed to report changes in liquidity and functioning in the market for the underlying collateral to be funded through repurchase agreements and similar secured financing transactions, not changes in the funding markets themselves. This question was not asked with respect to equity markets in the core questions. Return to text

4. In the survey special questions, "net long" was defined to mean that the clients' positions would be expected to increase in value, on net, under the given scenario, and "net short" was defined to mean that the clients' positions would be expected to decrease in value on net. 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

Accessible version

 

Results of the September 2018 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?

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	3	75.0
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0
      3rd Most Important	1	25.0
      Total	4	100.0

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	2	66.7
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	3	100.0

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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?

 

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

 

1. Mutual funds

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

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

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

4. Endowments

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

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

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. 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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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?

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

 

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?

 

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?

 

 

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

 

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. 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

   8. Other

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very Important	0	Undefined
      Somewhat Important	0	Undefined
      Not Important	0	Undefined
      Total	0	Undefined

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

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4
   Decreased Somewhat	3	13.6
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

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

3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	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

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	81.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.5
   Total	22	100.0

3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8
   Total	21	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	2	10.0
   Total	20	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?

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

   	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

2. Acceptable collateral

   	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

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

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

4. Triggers and covenants

   	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

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

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

6. Other

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

 

Initial Margin

 

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	1	5.3
   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

 

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?

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. FX

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

2. Interest rate

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

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

6. Commodity

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	13.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

1. FX

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

2. Interest rate

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

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	100.0

6. Commodity

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	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.

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

 

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	23	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	4.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	91.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	87.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	13.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	23	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	22	95.7
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.3
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	87.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	13.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	23	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

 

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	10.5
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	73.7
      Eased Somewhat	4	21.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	19	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

 

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	15.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	70.0
      Eased Somewhat	5	25.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	20	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.8
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.9
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	17	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.9
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	76.5
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.8
      Eased Considerably	1	5.9
      Total	17	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

 

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	75.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	12.5
      Eased Considerably	1	6.3
      Total	16	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

 

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   5. Other

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other

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

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

 

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?

 

 

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

 

 

Mark and Collateral Disputes

 

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	2	12.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	87.5
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.3
   Total	16	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 Hypothetical Scenarios for the Yield Curve¹

Since the beginning of the year, the U.S. Treasury yield curve has shifted upward in level while flattening in slope, with the 3-month yield rising 54 basis points and the 10-year yield rising 45 basis points in the first half of the year. In the following questions we explore the potential effects of future changes in the interest rate environment on the price and nonprice terms of financing provided by your institution; we also explore how different classes of clients are positioned for such changes.
We consider two hypothetical scenarios. In each case, we specify a directional change in the slope or level of the yield curve. We recognize that the effect of a scenario may depend on the underlying macroeconomic environment and market conditions, and so we ask that you provide responses based on the conditions you judge most plausible given the yield curve scenario.
For the first set of questions, consider a scenario of a moderate inversion of the yield curve by the end of 2018, where "inversion" is defined as the 10-year yield falling below the 3-month yield. In your responses, assume that the scenario involves only a change to the slope of the yield curve so that the level of the 2 year yield remains roughly unchanged relative to the present.

81. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for clients, how would the price terms (for example, financing rates as spreads above your cost of funding) offered to clients on securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions likely change in response to an inversion of the yield curve?

 

82. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for clients, how would your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) offered to clients likely change in response to an inversion of the yield curve?

 

 

83. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms would tighten or ease under the inversion scenario (as reflected in your responses to questions 81 and 82), what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please respond to A (if you indicated a tightening in responding to either of the two preceding questions), B (if you indicated an easing in responding to either of the two preceding questions), or both, as appropriate. Please select no more than three reasons, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with deterioration in the financial strength of counterparties.

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

   2. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk.

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	0	0.0
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	2	66.7
      Total	3	100.0

   3. The scenario entails higher internal treasury charges for funding.

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

   4. The scenario entails diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution.

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

   5. The scenario is associated with worsening in general market liquidity and functioning.

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	2	66.7
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	3	100.0

   6. The scenario entails less-aggressive competition from other institutions.

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

   7. Other (please specify)

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

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with improvement in the financial strength of counterparties.

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

   2. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with increased willingness of your institution to take on risk.

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

   3. The scenario entails 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

   4. The scenario entails increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution.

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

   5. The scenario is associated with improvement in general market liquidity and functioning.

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

   6. The scenario entails more-aggressive competition from other institutions.

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

   7. Other (please specify)

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

 

84. On net, how are your client accounts of each of the following types positioned for an inversion of the yield curve? In this question "net long" means that your clients' positions would be expected to increase in value, on net, under an inversion scenario, and "net short" means your clients' positions would be expected to decrease in value on net. (Please use the following scale: 1 = Most clients are net long, 2 = More clients are net long than net short, 3 = Roughly equal proportions of clients are net long and net short, 4 = More clients are net short than net long, 5 = Most clients are net short, 6 = Most clients do not have net directional exposure to the inversion scenario, or n/a = Not applicable (that is, your institution has few or no clients of the specified type).)

 

1. Fixed income hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	6.3
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	25.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	3	18.8
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	5	31.3
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	6.3
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	2	12.5
   Total	16	100.0

2. Global macro hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	5.6
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	16.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	7	38.9
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	4	22.2
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	5.6
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	2	11.1
   Total	18	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	2	14.3
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	28.6
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	28.6
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	21.4
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

4. Pension plans and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	4	28.6
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	21.4
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	35.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	7.1
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	4	28.6
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	21.4
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	35.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	7.1
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	2	15.4
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	23.1
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	30.8
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	7.7
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Inversion Scenario	3	23.1
   Total	13	100.0

 

For the second set of questions, consider a scenario of a moderate parallel shift upward in the yield curve by the end of 2018. Assume that the slope of the yield curve remains approximately unchanged relative to the present.

 

85. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for clients, how would the price terms (for example, financing rates as spreads above your cost of funding) offered to clients on securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions likely change in response to a parallel shift upward of the yield curve?

 

86. Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for clients, how would your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions, or other documentation features) offered to clients likely change in response to a parallel shift upward of the yield curve?

 

 

87. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms would tighten or ease under the parallel shift scenario (as reflected in your responses to questions 85 and 86), what are the most important reasons for the change? (Please respond to A (if you indicated a tightening in responding to either of the two preceding questions), B (if you indicated an easing in responding to either of the two preceding questions), or both, as appropriate. Please select no more than three reasons, indicating the most important by selecting the radio button in the first column, the next most important by selecting the radio button in the second column, and so on.)

 

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with deterioration in the financial strength of counterparties.

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

   2. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk.

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

   3. The scenario entails higher internal treasury charges for funding.

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	2	66.7
      2nd Most Important	1	33.3
      3rd Most Important	0	0.0
      Total	3	100.0

   4. The scenario entails diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution.

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

   5. The scenario is associated with worsening in general market liquidity and functioning.

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

   6. The scenario entails less-aggressive competition from other institutions.

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

   7. Other (please specify)

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

2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with improvement in the financial strength of counterparties.

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

   2. The scenario signals future macroeconomic conditions that would be associated with increased willingness of your institution to take on risk.

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

   3. The scenario entails 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

   4. The scenario entails increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution.

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

   5. The scenario is associated with improvement in general market liquidity and functioning.

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

   6. The scenario entails more-aggressive competition from other institutions.

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

   7. Other (please specify)

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

 

88. On net, how are your client accounts of each of the following types positioned for a parallel shift upward in the yield curve? In this question "net long" means that your clients' positions would be expected to increase in value, on net, under a parallel shift upward scenario, and "net short" means your clients' positions would be expected to decrease in value on net. (Please use the following scale: 1 = Most clients are net long, 2 = More clients are net long than net short, 3 = Roughly equal proportions of clients are net long and net short, 4 = More clients are net short than net long, 5 = Most clients are net short, 6 = Most clients do not have net directional exposure to the parallel shift upward scenario, or n/a = Not applicable (that is, your institution has few or no clients of the specified type).)

 

1. Fixed income hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	3	18.8
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	25.0
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	25.0
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	1	6.3
   Most Clients Are Net Short	2	12.5
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	2	12.5
   Total	16	100.0

2. Global macro hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	3	16.7
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	3	16.7
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	7	38.9
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	2	11.1
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	5.6
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	2	11.1
   Total	18	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	1	7.1
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	28.6
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	5	35.7
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	3	21.4
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

4. Pension plans and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	4	28.6
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	14.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	2	14.3
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	4	28.6
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	7.1
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	5	35.7
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	2	14.3
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	1	7.1
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	4	28.6
   Most Clients Are Net Short	1	7.1
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	1	7.1
   Total	14	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Most Clients Are Net Long	2	15.4
   More Clients Are Net Long Than Net Short	4	30.8
   Roughly Equal Proportions Of Clients Are Net Long And Net Short	4	30.8
   More Clients Are Net Short Than Net Long	0	0.0
   Most Clients Are Net Short	0	0.0
   Most Clients Do Not Have Net Directional Exposure To The Parallel Shift Upward Scenario	3	23.1
   Total	13	100.0

 

1. The following special questions are intended to provide better context for interpreting the core set of questions in the previous section, which focus on changes in credit terms over the preceding three months. Unlike the core questions, these special questions will not be included in the survey on an ongoing basis. Return to text