1. Home
  2. Data
  3. Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

PDF

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, December 2024

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The December 2024 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets between September 2024 and November 2024.1 In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about clients’ positioning and trading of OTC foreign exchange (FX) derivatives around the early August selloff.

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)2

With regard to the credit terms applicable to, and mark and collateral disputes with, different counterparty types across the entire range of securities financing and OTC derivatives transactions, responses to the core questions revealed the following:

  • Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were generally unchanged across most types of counterparties. For real estate investment trusts (REITs), a small net fraction of dealers reported tightening of price terms such as financing rates (see the exhibit “Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit”). One-fourth of dealers indicated an increase in REITs’ efforts to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms, while a small fraction of respondents reported that the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable terms increased somewhat over the period.
  • A small fraction of dealers indicated that resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties increased somewhat, while resources and attention for managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers remained basically unchanged. Roughly four-fifths of respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices, including margin requirements and haircuts, have not affected or have minimally affected the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
  • The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months for most counterparty types, although one-fifth of dealers indicated a decrease in the volume and duration of such disputes with nonfinancial corporations.

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, dealers reported that the use of leverage remained basically unchanged for all client types.

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

  • Almost all dealers reported no changes in nonprice terms in master agreements.
  • Nearly all dealers reported no changes in initial margin requirements for all types of OTC derivatives.
  • A small fraction of respondents indicated that the posting of nonstandard collateral (that is, other than cash and U.S. Treasury securities) increased over the past three months.
  • The volume and duration of mark and collateral disputes remained largely unchanged for most types of contracts. However, roughly one-third and a small fraction of respondents reported a decrease in the volume of such disputes for OTC derivatives contracts referencing securitized products and equities, respectively. Furthermore, a small fraction of dealers indicated a decrease in the duration and persistence of such disputes for commodity derivatives.

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

  • The terms on securities financing were reported as basically unchanged for most collateral types. For agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), a small fraction of respondents indicated a tightening of collateral spreads for average clients.
  • On net, about one-third of dealers reported increased demand for funding equities and agency RMBS, while a small fraction of respondents indicated an increase in demand for funding of high-grade corporate bonds. Demand for funding of all other asset classes was largely unchanged (see the exhibit “Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning”).
  • Across all collateral types, the demand for term funding remained basically unchanged.
  • Roughly one-fifth of dealers reported that liquidity and functioning in the high-grade corporate bond and in the consumer asset-backed securities markets improved somewhat over the past three months. For all other asset classes surveyed, liquidity and market functioning remained basically unchanged.
  • The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the past three months across all collateral types.

Special Questions on OTC FX Derivatives Trading during the Early August Selloff
(Questions 81-90)

Heightened volatility in financial markets in early August 2024 was reportedly associated with an unwinding of FX carry trades. Such trades typically involve a short position in a lower-yielding currency combined with a long position in a higher-yielding currency. Many of these trades had reportedly been established with OTC FX derivatives3. In the special questions, dealers were asked about clients' use of OTC FX derivatives in June 2024 and changes in their use during and after the early August selloff, with a focus on positions associated with FX carry trades. Roughly four-fifths of dealers indicated that they are active in intermediating client positions in OTC FX derivatives.

Dealers were asked to characterize the use of OTC FX derivatives by clients as of the end of June 2024. Responses indicated significant use across all client types.

  • Nearly three-fourths of dealers reported that a large number of hedge fund and commodity trading adviser (CTA) clients widely employed OTC FX derivatives as of the end of June 2024, and roughly one-fifth reported that OTC FX derivatives were used by some of these clients.
  • For insurance company clients, close to one-half of respondents indicated that OTC FX derivatives were widely used by a large number of clients, and about two-fifths reported that these instruments were employed by some of these clients.
  • For other client types—nonfinancial corporations; mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and separately managed accounts (SMAs) established with investment advisers; and pension plans, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds—around two-fifths of respondents indicated that OTC FX derivatives were widely used by a large number of clients, and fractions of between roughly one-third and one-half indicated that OTC FX derivatives were used by some of these clients.

Dealers were asked about how frequently clients used OTC FX derivatives for FX carry, speculative or directional positioning, and hedging purposes as of the end of June 2024.

  • For all client types except hedge funds and CTAs, hedging was the most cited reason by dealers for clients' frequent use of OTC FX derivatives, with between roughly four-fifths and nearly all respondents indicating that clients frequently used OTC FX derivatives for this purpose.
  • For hedge fund and CTA clients, nearly all dealers responded that clients frequently used OTC FX derivatives for speculative or directional positioning purposes, while close to four-fifths of respondents indicated that these instruments were also frequently used for FX carry positioning and slightly less than three-fourths indicated they were frequently used for hedging.
  • For the combined category of pension fund, endowment, and sovereign wealth fund clients, nearly two-fifths and close to one-third of respondents indicated that such clients frequently used OTC FX derivatives for FX carry positioning and for speculative or directional positioning, respectively.
  • For mutual fund, ETF, and SMA clients, a small fraction of dealers reported frequent use of these instruments for speculative or directional positioning.

For the clients who employed OTC FX derivatives for carry trade positioning as of the end of June 2024, dealers indicated that for all client types, FX forwards were the most commonly used instrument in taking such positions, while FX swaps were reported as the second most frequently used instrument. FX options were reported as the third most frequently used instrument across clients.

Dealers were asked to characterize how clients using OTC FX derivatives were positioned with respect to lower-yielding currencies as of the end of June 2024 and how such positions changed during the early August selloff.

  • For hedge funds and CTAs, a net fraction of two-thirds of dealers reported either that most of these clients were net short or that more clients were net short than net long as of the end of June 2024.
  • For the combined category of pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, nearly three-fifths of respondents, on net, indicated either that most of these clients were net short or that more clients were net short than net long.
  • For the combined category of mutual funds, ETFs, and SMAs, nearly one-fourth of respondents, on net, reported that most of these clients were net short or that more clients were net short than net long over the period.
  • For insurance companies and nonfinancial corporations, over one-fourth and two-fifths of respondents, respectively, indicated that most clients did not have net directional exposure in FX derivatives as of the end of June 2024.
  • With respect to changes in such positions during the early August selloff, for all client types except nonfinancial corporations, net fractions of between one-fifth and one-half of dealers reported that clients increased, on net, their long OTC FX derivatives positions in lower-yielding currencies.
    • A net fraction of nearly one-half of dealers indicated that hedge funds and CTAs were more long, on net, than they were before the selloff.
    • Almost all dealers reported that the OTC FX derivatives positions in these currencies held by nonfinancial corporations did not change significantly. For all other client types except hedge funds and CTAs, fractions of between one-half and over two-thirds of dealers reported no significant net change in such positions.

For clients trading OTC FX derivatives at the time of the survey, dealers were asked to characterize the net change in clients' OTC FX derivatives positions in lower-yielding currencies since the peak of the early August selloff.

  • A net fraction of nearly one-third of dealers reported that hedge fund and CTA clients were more long, on net, on lower-yielding currencies relative to their positions at the peak of the selloff.
  • For mutual fund, ETF, and SMA clients, one-fifth of dealers, on net, indicated that clients were somewhat more long on OTC FX derivatives positions in lower-yielding currencies, while two-thirds reported no significant net change in their positions.
  • For nonfinancial corporations, all respondents indicated no significant net change in clients' positions in lower-yielding currencies since the peak of the early August selloff, while roughly four-fifths reported the same for insurance companies. For the combined category of pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds, one-half of dealers indicated no significant net changes in such positions.

Finally, dealers were also asked to characterize the change in liquidity conditions in OTC FX derivatives markets during the early August selloff.

  • Around one-half of respondents indicated that liquidity conditions in OTC FX derivatives markets deteriorated between late July and the peak of the early August selloff, while the remainder indicated no change in liquidity conditions.
  • Of the dealers that reported a deterioration in liquidity conditions, three-fifths pointed to a rapid unwinding of FX carry trades as a very important reason for the deterioration. In addition, diminished dealer intermediation activity and reduced willingness of dealers to take risks in FX derivatives markets were reported by close to one-third of dealers as very important reasons for the deterioration.
  • About four-fifths of dealers reported that their initial margin requirements with respect to noncentrally cleared OTC FX derivatives remained basically unchanged during the selloff.

This document was prepared by Ayelén 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 Capital Markets Function, the Statistics Function, and the Markets Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

1. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted between November 12, 2024, and November 25, 2024. Return to text

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

3. In these questions, OTC FX derivatives are broadly defined to include any OTC instruments referencing foreign currencies and any structured instruments with such derivatives embedded. 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 for Funding and Market Functioning

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

Accessible version

Results of the December 2024 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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
Remained Basically Unchanged 21 91.3
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

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 Percentage
To A Considerable Extent 0 0.0
To Some Extent 4 17.4
To A Minimal Extent 10 43.5
Not At All 9 39.1
Total 23 100.0

Hedge Funds

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 2 9.1
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 86.4
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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
Eased Somewhat 1 4.5
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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
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

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 Percentage
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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 22 100.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 4.8
Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 1 5.0
Tightened Somewhat 3 15.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 75.0
Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 2 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 5 25.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 75.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 4 20.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 14 70.0
Decreased Somewhat 2 10.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Eased Somewhat 1 4.8
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
Eased Somewhat 1 4.8
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Possible reasons for easing
    1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  3. Pension plans
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  4. Endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
Tightened Somewhat 1 4.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
Eased Somewhat 1 4.5
Eased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 22 100.0

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

  1. Possible reasons for tightening
    1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 2 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 2 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
    7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 0 0.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
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

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 Percentage
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

Investment Advisers to Separately Managed Accounts

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
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

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 Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if financing rates have risen.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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? (Please indicate tightening if terms have become more stringent-for example, if haircuts have been increased.)

  Number of Respondents Percentage
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

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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 1 100.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 0 0.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 1 100.0
      Total 1 100.0
    6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Most Important 1 100.0
      2nd Most Important 0 0.0
      3rd Most Important 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
    7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 Percentage
      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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 13.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 78.3
    Decreased Somewhat 2 8.7
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 4.5
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 86.4
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 75.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 3 14.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 4.5
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 86.4
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Decreased Considerably 2 10.0
    Total 20 100.0

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

  1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.3
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 91.3
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 23 100.0
  2. Hedge funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 90.9
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.1
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 22 100.0
  3. Trading REITs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 5.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 85.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 1 5.0
    Total 20 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 81.8
    Decreased Somewhat 2 9.1
    Decreased Considerably 1 4.5
    Total 22 100.0
  6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  7. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 80.0
    Decreased Somewhat 2 10.0
    Decreased Considerably 2 10.0
    Total 20 100.0

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

  1. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Acceptable collateral
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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. Triggers and covenants
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Eased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  5. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
    Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 100.0
    Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Eased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  6. Other (please specify)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 2 9.5
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 2 11.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 2 11.8
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

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

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

48. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to TRS referencing non-securities (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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 19 100.0
  2. Initial margin requirements for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 4.3
Increased Somewhat 2 8.7
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 87.0
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 23 100.0

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

  1. FX
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased Somewhat 2 11.1
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 82.4
    Decreased Somewhat 3 17.6
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 6.3
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
    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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 10 71.4
    Decreased Somewhat 2 14.3
    Decreased Considerably 2 14.3
    Total 14 100.0
  6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 6.3
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 81.3
    Decreased Somewhat 2 12.5
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  7. TRS referencing non-securities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 94.4
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.6
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  2. Interest rate
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 88.9
    Decreased Somewhat 2 11.1
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 18 100.0
  3. Equity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  4. Credit referencing corporates
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 14 87.5
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.3
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.3
    Total 16 100.0
  5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 7.1
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 11 78.6
    Decreased Somewhat 1 7.1
    Decreased Considerably 1 7.1
    Total 14 100.0
  6. Commodity
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 13 81.3
    Decreased Somewhat 2 12.5
    Decreased Considerably 1 6.3
    Total 16 100.0
  7. TRS referencing non-securities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
    Decreased Somewhat 1 5.9
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 50.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 1 50.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 50.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 1 50.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 4 19.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

Funding of 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 Percentage
      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
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 20 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      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 (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

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

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 Percentage
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

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 2 10.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 18 90.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 18 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 81.0
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 4.8
Increased Somewhat 6 28.6
Remained Basically Unchanged 13 61.9
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 1 4.8
Total 21 100.0

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 1 4.8
      Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 4 19.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 66.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 9.5
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
      Eased Somewhat 1 4.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 1 4.8
      Tightened Somewhat 3 14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged 14 66.7
      Eased Somewhat 3 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 21 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 2 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 2 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 1 4.8
Increased Somewhat 5 23.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 71.4
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 9.5
Remained Basically Unchanged 19 90.5
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 4.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 21 100.0

Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

  1. Terms for average clients
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
      Eased Somewhat 1 5.9
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
      Eased Somewhat 2 11.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
      Eased Somewhat 2 11.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 88.2
      Eased Somewhat 2 11.8
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 17 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 5.9
Remained Basically Unchanged 16 94.1
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 17 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 16 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
      Eased Somewhat 1 6.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 16 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0

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

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

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 1 6.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 1 6.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
Deteriorated Somewhat 0 0.0
Deteriorated Considerably 0 0.0
Total 16 100.0

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 Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0
  2. Terms for most favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship
    1. Maximum amount of funding
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    2. Maximum maturity
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 13 92.9
      Eased Somewhat 1 7.1
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    3. Haircuts
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
      Eased Somewhat 2 14.3
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 14 100.0
    5. Other (please specify)
        Number of Respondents Percentage
      Tightened Considerably 0 0.0
      Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged 1 100.0
      Eased Somewhat 0 0.0
      Eased Considerably 0 0.0
      Total 1 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100.0

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 Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 2 14.3
Remained Basically Unchanged 12 85.7
Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 14 100.0

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

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 3 21.4
Remained Basically Unchanged 11 78.6
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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 4.8
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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

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 Percentage
    Increased Considerably 1 4.8
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  2. High-yield corporate bonds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 5.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 19 95.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 20 100.0
  3. Equities
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 21 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  4. Agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 1 4.8
    Remained Basically Unchanged 20 95.2
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 21 100.0
  5. Non-agency RMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 17 100.0
    Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  6. CMBS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Increased Considerably 0 0.0
    Increased Somewhat 0 0.0
    Remained Basically Unchanged 15 93.8
    Decreased Somewhat 1 6.3
    Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  7. Consumer ABS
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    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

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.

80. Are there any other recent developments involving conditions and practices in any of the markets addressed in this survey or applicable to the counterparty types listed in this survey that you regard as particularly significant and which were not fully addressed in the prior questions? Your response will help us stay abreast of emerging issues and in choosing questions for future surveys. There is no need to reply to this question if there is nothing you wish to add.

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Free-Text Entry 4 100.0
Total 4 100.0

Special Questions

Heightened volatility in financial markets in early August 2024 was reportedly associated with the unwinding of foreign exchange (FX) carry trades. Such trades typically involve a short position in a lower-yielding currency combined with a long position in a higher-yielding currency. Many of these trades had reportedly been established with over-the-counter (OTC) FX derivatives.1 In these special questions we ask about your clients? use of OTC FX derivatives and changes in their use during the early-August selloff, with a focus on positions associated with FX carry trades.

Questions 81 through 86 ask about the use of OTC FX derivatives by different types of clients. Questions 87 through 89 ask about changes in liquidity conditions in OTC FX derivatives markets and margin requirements during the episode. Question 90 asks about changes in your clients? OTC FX derivatives positions since the selloff.

Over-the-Counter Foreign Exchange Derivatives

81. Is your institution currently active in intermediating client positions in OTC FX derivatives?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Yes 19 82.6
No 4 17.4
Total 23 100.0

82. How would you characterize the use of OTC FX derivatives by clients of each of the following types as of the end of June 2024?

  1. Hedge funds and Commodity Trading Advisors (CTAs)
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Widely Used By A Large Number Of Clients 14 73.7
    Used by some clients 4 21.1
    Used by only a few clients 0 0.0
    Used To A Minimal Extent By Clients 0 0.0
    Not Used By Clients 1 5.3
    Total 19 100.0
  2. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Widely Used By A Large Number Of Clients 9 47.4
    Used by some clients 7 36.8
    Used by only a few clients 2 10.5
    Used To A Minimal Extent By Clients 0 0.0
    Not Used By Clients 1 5.3
    Total 19 100.0
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Widely Used By A Large Number Of Clients 8 42.1
    Used by some clients 6 31.6
    Used by only a few clients 2 10.5
    Used To A Minimal Extent By Clients 0 0.0
    Not Used By Clients 3 15.8
    Total 19 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, exchange-traded funds (ETFs), and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Widely Used By A Large Number Of Clients 8 42.1
    Used by some clients 9 47.4
    Used by only a few clients 0 0.0
    Used To A Minimal Extent By Clients 0 0.0
    Not Used By Clients 2 10.5
    Total 19 100.0
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Widely Used By A Large Number Of Clients 7 36.8
    Used by some clients 7 36.8
    Used by only a few clients 1 5.3
    Used To A Minimal Extent By Clients 1 5.3
    Not Used By Clients 3 15.8
    Total 19 100.0

83. Considering your institutions clients of each of the following types who employed OTC FX derivatives as of the end of June 2024, how frequently did they use OTC FX derivatives for the following purposes?

  1. Hedge funds and CTAs
    Topic Frequently used Used only in a few situations Rarely used Not used Do not know Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX carry positioning 14 4 0 0 0 18
    ii) Speculative/directional positioning 16 2 0 0 0 18
    iii) Hedging 13 3 2 0 0 18
    Total 43 9 2 0 0  
  2. Insurance companies
    Topic Frequently used Used only in a few situations Rarely used Not used Do not know Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX carry positioning 2 6 5 4 1 18
    ii) Speculative/directional positioning 1 5 7 4 1 18
    iii) Hedging 15 2 1 0 0 18
    Total 18 13 13 8 2  
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
    Topic Frequently used Used only in a few situations Rarely used Not used Do not know Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX carry positioning 6 6 3 1 0 16
    ii) Speculative/directional positioning 5 6 4 1 0 16
    iii) Hedging 14 2 0 0 0 16
    Total 25 14 7 2 0  
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Topic Frequently used Used only in a few situations Rarely used Not used Do not know Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX carry positioning 2 5 5 3 2 17
    ii) Speculative/directional positioning 3 7 4 2 1 17
    iii) Hedging 14 2 1 0 0 17
    Total 19 14 10 5 3  
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
    Topic Frequently used Used only in a few situations Rarely used Not used Do not know Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX carry positioning 0 3 4 6 2 15
    ii) Speculative/directional positioning 0 2 6 5 2 15
    iii) Hedging 14 0 1 0 0 15
    Total 14 5 11 11 4  

84. Considering your institutions clients of each of the following types who employed OTC FX derivatives for carry trade positioning as of the end of June 2024 (as reflected in column i. of your response to question 83), which OTC FX derivative instruments were most commonly used by your clients in taking such positions?

  1. Hedge funds and CTAs
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX forwards 10 5 3 18
    ii) FX swaps 3 7 7 17
    iii) FX options 5 6 7 18
    iv) Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0
    Total 18 18 17  
  2. Insurance companies
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX forwards 8 4 1 13
    ii) FX swaps 4 6 3 13
    iii) FX options 1 3 9 13
    iv) Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0
    Total 13 13 13  
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX forwards 10 4 1 15
    ii) FX swaps 4 8 3 15
    iii) FX options 1 3 11 15
    iv) Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0
    Total 15 15 15  
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX forwards 7 3 1 11
    ii) FX swaps 3 6 2 11
    iii) FX options 1 2 7 10
    iv) Other (please specify) 1 0 0 1
    Total 12 11 10  
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
    Topic Most Important 2nd Most Important 3rd Most Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    i) FX forwards 4 2 1 7
    ii) FX swaps 2 4 1 7
    iii) FX options 1 1 4 6
    iv) Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0
    Total 7 7 6  

85. As of the end of June 2024, how were your clients of each of the following types who employed OTC FX derivatives positioned in such instruments with respect to lower-yielding currencies?

  1. Hedge funds and CTAs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most clients were net long 1 5.6
    More clients were net long than net short 0 0.0
    Roughly equal proportions of clients were net long and net short 3 16.7
    More clients were net short than net long 8 44.4
    Most clients were net short 5 27.8
    Most clients did not have net directional exposure in such positions 1 5.6
    Total 18 100.0
  2. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most clients were net long 1 5.6
    More clients were net long than net short 2 11.1
    Roughly equal proportions of clients were net long and net short 5 27.8
    More clients were net short than net long 3 16.7
    Most clients were net short 0 0.0
    Most clients did not have net directional exposure in such positions 7 38.9
    Total 18 100.0
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most clients were net long 0 0.0
    More clients were net long than net short 0 0.0
    Roughly equal proportions of clients were net long and net short 4 25.0
    More clients were net short than net long 7 43.8
    Most clients were net short 2 12.5
    Most clients did not have net directional exposure in such positions 3 18.8
    Total 16 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most clients were net long 1 5.9
    More clients were net long than net short 0 0.0
    Roughly equal proportions of clients were net long and net short 5 29.4
    More clients were net short than net long 5 29.4
    Most clients were net short 0 0.0
    Most clients did not have net directional exposure in such positions 6 35.3
    Total 17 100.0
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Most clients were net long 0 0.0
    More clients were net long than net short 1 6.7
    Roughly equal proportions of clients were net long and net short 6 40.0
    More clients were net short than net long 1 6.7
    Most clients were net short 1 6.7
    Most clients did not have net directional exposure in such positions 6 40.0
    Total 15 100.0

86. Considering your institutions clients of each of the following types who trade OTC FX derivatives, how would you characterize the net change in their OTC FX derivatives positions in lower-yielding currencies during the early-August selloff?

  1. Hedge funds and CTAs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 5 29.4
    Somewhat more long 6 35.3
    Did not change significantly 3 17.6
    Somewhat more short 3 17.6
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 4 25.0
    Did not change significantly 11 68.8
    Somewhat more short 1 6.3
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 1 6.7
    Somewhat more long 6 40.0
    Did not change significantly 8 53.3
    Somewhat more short 0 0.0
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 5 33.3
    Did not change significantly 9 60.0
    Somewhat more short 1 6.7
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 0 0.0
    Did not change significantly 12 92.3
    Somewhat more short 1 7.7
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 13 100.0

87. How would you characterize the change in liquidity conditions in OTC FX derivatives markets between late July and the peak of the early-August selloff?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Improved Considerably 0 0.0
Improved Somewhat 0 0.0
Remained Basically Unchanged 9 47.4
Deteriorated Somewhat 6 31.6
Deteriorated Considerably 4 21.1
Total 19 100.0

88. To the extent that liquidity in the market for OTC FX derivatives changed during the early-August selloff (as reflected in your response to question 87), how important has each of the following possible reasons been for your assessment?

  1. Possible reasons for an improvement
    Topic Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    1) More balanced client order flow 0 0 0 0
    2) Greater availability of trading opportunities 0 0 0 0
    3) Increased dealer intermediation activity 0 0 0 0
    4) Increased willingness of dealers to take risks in FX derivatives markets 0 0 0 0
    5) Other (please specify) 0 0 0 0
    Total 0 0 0  
  2. Possible reasons for a deterioration
    Topic Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important Total
      Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		 Number of
    Respondents    		  
    1) Rapid unwinding of FX carry trades 6 2 2 10
    2) Less availability of trading opportunities 0 5 5 10
    3) Diminished dealer intermediation activity 3 5 2 10
    4) Reduced willingness of dealers to take risks in FX derivatives markets 3 5 2 10
    5) Other (please specify) 1 1 0 2
    Total 13 18 11  

89. During the early-August selloff, how did the initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to non-centrally cleared OTC FX derivatives change?

  Number of Respondents Percentage
Increased Considerably 0 0.0
Increased Somewhat 3 15.8
Remained Basically Unchanged 15 78.9
Decreased Somewhat 1 5.3
Decreased Considerably 0 0.0
Total 19 100.0

90. Considering your institutions clients of each of the following types who currently trade OTC FX derivatives, how would you characterize the net change in their OTC FX derivatives positions in lower-yielding currencies since the peak of the early-August selloff?

  1. Hedge funds and CTAs
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 3 17.6
    Somewhat more long 6 35.3
    Did not change significantly 4 23.5
    Somewhat more short 4 23.5
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 17 100.0
  2. Insurance companies
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 2 12.5
    Did not change significantly 13 81.3
    Somewhat more short 1 6.3
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  3. Pension funds, endowments, and sovereign wealth funds
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 5 31.3
    Did not change significantly 8 50.0
    Somewhat more short 3 18.8
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 16 100.0
  4. Mutual funds, ETFs, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 4 26.7
    Did not change significantly 10 66.7
    Somewhat more short 1 6.7
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 15 100.0
  5. Nonfinancial corporations
      Number of Respondents Percentage
    Significantly more long 0 0.0
    Somewhat more long 0 0.0
    Did not change significantly 14 100.0
    Somewhat more short 0 0.0
    Significantly more short 0 0.0
    Total 14 100.0
Back to Top
Last Update: December 26, 2024