Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, September 2025

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The September 2025 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (SCOOS) collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets between June 2025 and August 2025.¹ In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about current practices and recent trends in the usage of securities as collateral in lieu of variation margin (VM) payments in OTC derivatives transactions.

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

With respect 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 largely unchanged across almost all types of counterparties. A small fraction of dealers reported that nonprice terms (such as haircuts, covenants, or other documentation features) tightened somewhat for insurance companies (see the exhibit “Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit”). One-fifth of dealers reported that the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms increased somewhat, as did small fractions for mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, insurance companies, and investment advisers to separately managed accounts.
• Attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries (such as large banking institutions) remained basically unchanged. All dealers reported no or minimal influence from changes in central counterparty practices, including margin requirements and haircuts, on credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
• Small fractions of respondents indicated that the volume of mark and collateral disputes with dealers, hedge funds, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, insurance companies, and nonfinancial corporations decreased somewhat.

With respect to client's use of financial leverage, for the majority of client types, all dealers reported that the use of leverage remained basically unchanged, on net, after reporting a net decrease in the previous survey. However, a small fraction of dealers reported that use of financial leverage increased somewhat for insurance companies (see the exhibit “Use of Financial Leverage”).

In OTC derivatives markets, one-fifth of dealers reported a decrease in the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to derivatives contracts in equities, with smaller fractions indicating decreases for derivatives contracts referencing foreign exchange and commodities markets, retracing the increases reported in the previous quarter. Dealers indicated that the posting of nonstandard collateral as well as nonprice terms in master agreements remained basically unchanged from the previous quarter. A small fraction of dealers reported an increase in initial margin requirements for equity derivatives. In addition, small fractions of respondents indicated a decrease in the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes for interest rate swaps and total return swaps.

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

• Small fractions of dealers reported an easing of funding spreads for average clients on high-grade corporate bonds, agency and non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS), and asset-backed securities (ABS) collateral types. For most-favored clients, one-fifth of dealers reported an easing of haircuts and spreads on non-agency RMBS, and small fractions of dealers reported an easing of haircuts and spreads on CMBS and ABS.
• Other terms on securities financing for average and most-favored clients were reported as basically unchanged for most collateral types.
• About one-fifth of dealers reported an increase in demand for funding of equities, and a small fraction of dealers reported an increase in demand for agency RMBS. The demand for funding of other collateral types, including term funding, remained basically unchanged (see the exhibit “Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning”).
• Fractions around one-fifth of dealers reported that liquidity and market functioning improved somewhat for high-grade corporate bonds, non-agency RMBS, and ABS.
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the period across all collateral types.

Special Questions on Securities Usage for Variation Margin Obligations in Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions

OTC derivatives transactions involve periodic exchange of VM between counterparties. Such VM payments can be posted in cash or in the form of collateral securities. The share of noncash VM received by dealer firms has reportedly grown over the past few years. In this quarter's special questions, dealers were asked about current practices and recent trends in the usage of noncash collateral for VM obligations in OTC derivatives transactions with clients. About three-fourths of dealers indicated that their institution accepts securities for VM obligations (henceforth referred to as “accepting dealers”).

• One-third of accepting dealers reported an increase in the volume of securities collateral as a share of the total VM payments received in OTC derivatives transactions since January 2023. Of the dealers reporting an increase, all cited increased demand from clients as a very important reason, and nearly all cited more-aggressive competition from other institutions as a somewhat important reason.
• Acceptance of securities for VM obligations varies by collateral type, with fewer dealers accepting less-liquid securities. All accepting dealers indicated they accept U.S. Treasury securities and corporate bonds; among such dealers, net fractions of around one-fourth noted that the use of these securities increased since January 2023. Three-fourths of dealers who accept securities collateral allow equities to be used for VM obligations, of which a net fraction of one-fourth reported increased use of equities since January 2023. Finally, two-fifths of the accepting dealers indicated that they accept other securities for VM obligations, of which one-half indicated increased use of such securities since January 2023.
• Accepting dealers reported that all client types covered in the survey use securities for VM obligations at least to some extent. For insurance companies and for pension funds and endowments, approximately one-half of accepting dealers reported frequent use of securities to post VM. For mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers, fractions between about one-half and two-thirds of accepting dealers reported occasional use of securities to post VM. For hedge funds and nonfinancial corporations, fractions between about three-fifths and three-fourths of accepting dealers reported rare use of securities to post VM.
• With regard to the factors that affect a dealer's willingness to accept securities for VM obligations, all accepting dealers cited market liquidity of collateral securities and four-fifths cited counterparty risk profile as very important factors. Relationship with the client, ease of rehypothecation of collateral securities, composition of collateral already held by the firm from all clients, size of haircut, and type of OTC derivatives contract were additional factors cited as somewhat or very important by at least four-fifths of accepting dealers.
• The survey asked about management of noncash VM collateral through third-party or triparty custodial arrangements. For positions where U.S. Treasury securities are used as collateral for VM obligations, one-third of accepting dealers indicated that a moderate fraction is managed through custodial arrangement, while the remaining two-thirds indicated that a small fraction is managed in this manner. For positions where securities other than U.S. Treasury securities are accepted as collateral for VM obligations, almost all accepting dealers indicated that a small fraction is managed through custodial arrangements.
• One-third of accepting dealers expect the volume of securities posted for VM obligations as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions to increase somewhat over the next 12 months.

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

1. The 20 institutions participating in the September 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 August 12, 2025, and August 25, 2025. Return to text

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

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

Accessible version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

Results of the September 2025 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms

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

 

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

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

Hedge Funds

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

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.)

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	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	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	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?

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

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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.)

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	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	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?

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

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

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

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

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.)

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	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	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	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?

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	19	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

   	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

4. Endowments

   	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

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

Insurance Companies

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

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.)

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	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	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	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	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?

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

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

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.)

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.)

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	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	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?

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

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

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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.)

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	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	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	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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	85.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	90.0
   Decreased Somewhat	2	10.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

3. Trading REITs

   	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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

   	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

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	18	94.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	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

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

2. Hedge funds

   	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

3. Trading REITs

   	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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

   	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

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	18	94.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

2. Acceptable collateral

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	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

4. Triggers and covenants

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

5. Other 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	18	100.0
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

6. 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

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	2	11.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	18	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	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

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	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

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	11.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	88.2
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	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

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	14	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	11	100.0

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	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	15	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

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	15	100.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

Nonstandard Collateral

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

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

2. Interest rate

   	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

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	3	20.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

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	12	92.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	2	14.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	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	12	92.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	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	15	93.8
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	16	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	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

3. Equity

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

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

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	12	92.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.1
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

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	11	84.6
   Decreased Somewhat	1	7.7
   Decreased Considerably	1	7.7
   Total	13	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	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   4. 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	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	1	5.6
      Remained Basically Unchanged	15	83.3
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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

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

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

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

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   4. 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	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   4. 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	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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

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

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

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

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (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	18	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (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?

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	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	88.9
      Eased Somewhat	2	11.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	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	94.4
      Eased Somewhat	1	5.6
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	18	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. 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

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

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

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

Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	15	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	80.0
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7
      Total	15	100.0

   5. 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

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

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

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

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	14	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	13	92.9
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.1
      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	1	7.1
      Eased Considerably	1	7.1
      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	0	0.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	0	0.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	14	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	14	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      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	1	7.1
      Eased Considerably	1	7.1
      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	0	0.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	0	0.0

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

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

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

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	92.3
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.7
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

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

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

   5. 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

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	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	100.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	100.0

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	84.6
      Eased Somewhat	2	15.4
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	13	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	11	84.6
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.7
      Eased Considerably	1	7.7
      Total	13	100.0

   5. 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

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

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	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. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

   	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

7. Consumer ABS

   	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

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	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. High-yield corporate bonds

   	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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

   	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

7. Consumer ABS

   	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

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.

Special Questions

Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives transactions involve periodic exchange of variation margin (VM) payments between counterparties. Such VM payments can be posted in cash or in the form of collateral securities. The share of noncash VM payments received by dealer firms has reportedly grown over the past few years. These special questions ask about current practices and recent trends in the usage of noncash collateral for VM payments in OTC derivatives transactions with clients.

Securities Usage for Variation Margin Payments in Over-the-Counter Derivatives Transactions

81. Does your institution accept securities-for example, U.S. Treasury securities or other securities-for VM payments from clients in OTC derivatives transactions?

82. Since January 2023, how has the volume of VM payments received using securities changed as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions?

83A. If you indicated in your response to question 82 that the volume of VM payments received using securities as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions has increased since January 2023, how important has each of the following factors been in supporting the increase?

83B. If you indicated in your response to question 82 that the volume of VM payments received using securities as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions has decreased since January 2023, how important has each of the following factors been in supporting the decrease?

84. Since January 2023, how has the volume of VM payments received using securities of each of the following types changed as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions?

1. US Treasury securities

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	33.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	1	6.7
   Total	15	100.0

2. Corporate bonds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	3	20.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

3. Equities

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	8.3
   Increased Somewhat	3	25.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	7	58.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	8.3
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

4. Other (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	50.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	3	50.0
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	6	100.0

85. For each of the following client types, how would you characterize the frequency of transactions in which securities are used for VM payments as a share of total OTC derivatives transactions for that client type?

1. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	0	0.0
   Occasionally used	6	42.9
   Rarely used	8	57.1
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	14	100.0

2. Mutual funds and exchange-traded funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	2	13.3
   Occasionally used	9	60.0
   Rarely used	4	26.7
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

3. Pension funds and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	7	53.8
   Occasionally used	4	30.8
   Rarely used	2	15.4
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

4. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	7	53.8
   Occasionally used	4	30.8
   Rarely used	2	15.4
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	13	100.0

5. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	1	8.3
   Occasionally used	8	66.7
   Rarely used	3	25.0
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	12	100.0

6. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	1	7.7
   Occasionally used	1	7.7
   Rarely used	10	76.9
   Not used	1	7.7
   Total	13	100.0

7. Other type of client (please specify)

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Frequently used	1	50.0
   Occasionally used	1	50.0
   Rarely used	0	0.0
   Not used	0	0.0
   Total	2	100.0

86. When entering a new OTC derivatives position with a client, what are the most important factors affecting your firm's willingness to accept securities for VM payments?

87A. For OTC derivatives positions with clients for which U.S. Treasury securities are used as collateral for VM payments, approximately what fraction is managed through a custodial third-party or triparty arrangements?

87B. For OTC derivatives positions with clients for which securities other than the U.S. Treasury securities are used as collateral for VM payments, approximately what fraction is managed through a custodial third-party or triparty arrangements?

88. How do you anticipate the volume of noncash VM payments your institution receives as a share of total VM payments received from clients in OTC derivatives transactions will change over the next 12 months?