Current Release PDF  

Release Date: March 23, 2017

Summary

The March 2017 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about the use of exchange-traded funds (ETFs) that invest in fixed-income and equity markets by the respondents' various client types. The 22 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between February 14, 2017, and February 27, 2017. The core questions asked about changes between December 2016 and February 2017.1

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)2

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


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

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

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

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

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

  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. In the December 2013 survey, about one-third to two-fifths of dealers reported some use of ETFs by their clients. Note that, at that time, no dealers pointed to a significant use of these instruments; however, in the current survey a small fraction of respondents cited significant use of fixed-income ETFs by their clients. Return to text

 

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

 

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

 

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

Accessible version

 

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

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

Accessible version

 

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

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

 


Counterparty Types

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

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


Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

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


Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 1 4.5%
Increased somewhat 2 9.1%
Remained basically unchanged 19 86.4%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 22 100.0%

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

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


Hedge Funds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Insurance Companies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Most Important 1 100.0%
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0%
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0%
      Total 1 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

32. How has the intensity of efforts by investment advisers to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms on behalf of separately managed accounts changed over the past three months?

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

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

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

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

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


Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

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

  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 18 90.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 5.3%
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

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

  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
    Decreased Somewhat 2 10.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.5%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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


Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

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


New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 4 20.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  2. Acceptable collateral
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

  4. Triggers and covenants
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 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 documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
    Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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


Initial Margin

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

  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 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 19 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 21 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 21 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 20 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 20 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 1 5.3%
    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%

  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 18 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 18 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 18 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 16 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 16 100.0%

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 11 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 11 100.0%

  2. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 10 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 10 100.0%

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 14 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%

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

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

  1. Initial margin requirements for average clients
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 12 100.0%
    Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%

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


Nonstandard Collateral

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 3 13.6%
Remained basically unchanged 17 77.3%
Decreased somewhat 2 9.1%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 22 100.0%


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

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

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

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

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

  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 6.7%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 15 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  7. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.1%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 14 100.0%


Securities Financing

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

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 19 95.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Improved considerably 0 0.0%
Improved somewhat 4 19.0%
Remained basically unchanged 16 76.2%
Deteriorated somewhat 1 4.8%
Deteriorated considerably 0 0.0%
Total 21 100.0%


High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

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

    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 2 12.5%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      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 1 6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
      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 15 93.8%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 16 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0%
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0%
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0%
      Eased Somewhat 2 10.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 20 100.0%

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

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

Number of Respondents Percent
Increased considerably 0 0.0%
Increased somewhat 6 30.0%
Remained basically unchanged 14 70.0%
Decreased somewhat 0 0.0%
Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
Total 20 100.0%


Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 2 10.5%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 84.2%
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.3%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 19 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  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 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  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 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.7%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 15 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

  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 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 90.9%
      Eased Somewhat 1 9.1%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

  2. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 11 100.0%
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

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

    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
      Number of Respondents Percent
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged 10 90.9%
      Eased Somewhat 1 9.1%
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0%
      Total 11 100.0%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. High-grade corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 5.3%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 6.3%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 16 100.0%

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

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 1 6.7%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 15 100.0%

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

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

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

  1. High-grade corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 94.7%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 19 100.0%

  2. High-yield corporate bonds
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.3%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 16 100.0%

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

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

  5. Non-agency RMBS
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 93.3%
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.7%
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0%
    Total 15 100.0%

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

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


Optional Question

Question 80 requests feedback on any other issues you judge to be important relating to credit terms applicable to securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives contracts.


Special Questions on the Use of ETFs1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    To a significant extent 1 7.7%
    To some extent 6 46.2%
    To a minimal extent 6 46.2%
    Total 13 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions 1 8.3%
    Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions 2 16.7%
    For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions 8 66.7%
    Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions 1 8.3%
    Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased substantially 2 16.7%
    Increased somewhat 5 41.7%
    Remained basically unchanged 3 25.0%
    Decreased somewhat 2 16.7%
    Decreased substantially 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


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

  1. Expected implementation of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 1 9.1%
    Important 1 9.1%
    Somewhat important 4 36.4%
    Not important 5 45.5%
    Total 11 100.0%

  2. Expected implementation of the SEC’s Liquidity Risk-Management Rules
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 0 0.0%
    Important 2 18.2%
    Somewhat important 4 36.4%
    Not important 5 45.5%
    Total 11 100.0%

  3. Client-specific factors (for example, changes to risk-management practices or business model)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 1 9.1%
    Important 6 54.5%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 1 9.1%
    Total 11 100.0%

  4. Other financial market developments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 2 18.2%
    Important 4 36.4%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 2 18.2%
    Total 11 100.0%

  5. Other reasons (for example, fee and cost considerations; please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 3 27.3%
    Important 1 9.1%
    Somewhat important 2 18.2%
    Not important 5 45.5%
    Total 11 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Expect to increase significantly 0 0.0%
    Expect to increase somewhat 4 33.3%
    Expect to remain basically unchanged 8 66.7%
    Expect to decrease somewhat 0 0.0%
    Expect to decrease significantly 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    To a significant extent 2 18.2%
    To some extent 7 63.6%
    To a minimal extent 2 18.2%
    Total 11 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Almost exclusively for longer-term strategic positions 1 8.3%
    Predominantly for longer-term strategic positions 3 25.0%
    For both longer-term strategic and shorter-term tactical positions 8 66.7%
    Predominantly for shorter-term tactical positions 0 0.0%
    Almost exclusively for shorter-term tactical positions 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Increased substantially 2 16.7%
    Increased somewhat 3 25.0%
    Remained basically unchanged 6 50.0%
    Decreased somewhat 1 8.3%
    Decreased substantially 0 0.0%
    Total 12 100.0%


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

  1. Expected implementation of the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 1 9.1%
    Important 1 9.1%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 6 54.5%
    Total 11 100.0%

  2. Expected implementation of the SEC’s Liquidity Risk-Management Rules
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 0 0.0%
    Important 1 9.1%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 7 63.6%
    Total 11 100.0%

  3. Client-specific factors (for example, changes to risk-management practices or business model)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 1 9.1%
    Important 5 45.5%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 2 18.2%
    Total 11 100.0%

  4. Other financial market developments
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 1 9.1%
    Important 4 36.4%
    Somewhat important 3 27.3%
    Not important 3 27.3%
    Total 11 100.0%

  5. Other reasons (for example, fee and cost considerations; please specify)
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Very important 5 45.5%
    Important 1 9.1%
    Somewhat important 2 18.2%
    Not important 3 27.3%
    Total 11 100.0%


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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Number of Respondents Percent
    Expect to increase significantly 1 9.1%
    Expect to increase somewhat 2 18.2%
    Expect to remain basically unchanged 8 72.7%
    Expect to decrease somewhat 0 0.0%
    Expect to decrease significantly 0 0.0%
    Total 11 100.0%


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

Last Update: March 23, 2017