Current Release PDF  

Summary

The December 2017 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about developments in the collateralized loan obligation (CLO) market over the past three years. The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted during the period between November 6, 2017, and November 17, 2017. The core questions asked about changes between September 2017 and November 2017.¹

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

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

• About one-fifth of respondents reported an easing in price terms for their hedge fund and trading real estate investment trust (REIT) clients. Among the dealers that indicated an easing of terms, more aggressive competition from other institutions was cited most frequently as an important reason. About one-fifth of dealers reported an easing in nonprice terms for hedge fund clients, and a smaller fraction reported such an easing for trading REIT clients. Price and nonprice terms were basically unchanged for all other classes of counterparties.
• About one-fourth of dealers noted an increase in the intensity of efforts by hedge fund clients to negotiate more favorable terms, and a smaller net fraction reported such an increase by trading REIT clients.
• A net fraction of one-sixth of dealers indicated an increase in the amount of resources and attention devoted to the management of concentrated credit exposure to central counterparties and other financial utilities. The same fraction of dealers noted that changes in the practices of central counterparties, such as margin requirements and haircuts, had influenced the credit terms applied to their clients on uncleared bilateral transactions to some extent.

With respect to the use of financial leverage, a small fraction of dealers reported a decrease in the use of financial leverage by trading REIT clients, while the use of financial leverage by other classes of counterparties was basically unchanged. A slightly smaller fraction of dealers reported an increase in the availability of additional (and currently unutilized) financial leverage under agreements currently in place with hedge funds.

With regard to OTC derivatives markets, dealers reported the following:

• Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were basically unchanged, on net, for both average and most-favored clients, across all types of derivatives.
• Small fractions of dealers reported that the volume of mark and collateral disputes had decreased on OTC derivatives contracts referencing equities, foreign exchange, and corporates.

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

• One-fifth of dealers noted a decrease over the past three months in haircuts for average clients in non-agency residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) and for both average and preferred clients in commercial mortgage-back securities. The same fraction of respondents reported an increase in the maximum amount of funding for preferred clients in non-agency RMBS. Across all asset classes, dealers reported that financing rates (collateral spreads over the relevant benchmarks) and maximum maturity were basically unchanged.
• Over one-fourth of respondents indicated an increase in demand for funding for equities, and a small net fraction reported an increase in demand for term funding with a maturity greater than 30 days for agency RMBS.
• A small fraction of dealers noted an improvement in the liquidity and market functioning for asset-backed securities. The liquidity and market functioning for other asset classes was reported to have been generally unchanged.

Special Questions on Collateralized Loan Obligations
(Questions 81–98)

Over the past three years, CLO assets under management have expanded at a solid pace, and a number of new CLO securities have been brought to the market. In the special questions for the survey this quarter, dealers were asked about the various ways in which they were involved in the CLO market. Dealers were also asked to assess changes in credit terms and conditions in the CLO market since November 1, 2014, and to provide reasons behind the changes, if any.

With respect to dealers’ current provision of warehouse financing facilities (for funding of leveraged loans on an interim basis to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization into CLOs) and changes to this provision over the past three years, dealers reported the following:

• About three-fifths of dealers reported that they provided warehouse financing facilities.
• Of the dealers that provided warehouse financing, a net fraction of almost two-thirds noted an increase, over the past three years, in their willingness to provide such financing.
• A net fraction of one-third of the dealers that provided warehouse financing noted an easing in price or nonprice terms. More aggressive competition from other institutions was, on balance, cited as the most important reason for the easing, followed by an improvement in the credit quality of their clients and their institutions’ increased willingness to take on risk.
• The vast majority of dealers that provided warehouse financing indicated an increase in their clients’ demand for these financing facilities. The important reasons for the increase cited by dealers included their clients’ increased willingness to take on risk and higher expected returns on CLO securities associated with realized or anticipated interest rate increases.

With respect to dealers’ current provision of funds to facilitate their clients’ purchase of CLO securities and changes to this provision over the past three years, dealers indicated the following:

• About three-fifths of respondents reported that they provided financing to facilitate their clients’ purchase of CLO securities. Among these dealers, a net fraction of about two-thirds reported some easing, over the past three years, in price and nonprice terms under which CLO purchases were funded. Dealers pointed to an improvement in general market liquidity and functioning as the most important reason for an easing, followed by more aggressive competition from other institutions and their own increased willingness to take on risk.³
• About three-fifths of the respondents that provided financing to facilitate their clients’ purchase of CLO securities, on net, reported that their clients’ demand for such funding had increased over the past three years. Important reasons for the increased demand cited by dealers included their clients’ increased willingness to take on risk and higher expected returns on CLO securities associated with realized or anticipated interest rate increases.
• More than one-third of the respondents that provided such financing reported that the securities currently financed for their clients were mostly mezzanine tranches. The same fraction reported that the securities were mostly a mix of triple-A-rated and mezzanine tranches or a mix of mezzanine and equity tranches. Over one-fifth reported that the securities covered a range of tranches across the capital structure, all in meaningful proportions.

With respect to dealers’ current ownership of CLO securities and changes over the past three years, they reported the following:

• About two-thirds of the respondents reported that they directly held CLO securities. Of those respondents, two-fifths reported an increase, over the past three years, in their demand for CLO securities. Dealers cited an improvement in general market liquidity and functioning as the primary reason for the increase, followed by increased availability of balance sheet or capital and their increased willingness to take on risk.
• Three-fifths of the respondents holding CLO securities reported holding mostly triple-A-rated tranches in the CLO capital structure. Over one-fourth reported holding mostly mezzanine tranches, a mix of triple-A-rated and mezzanine tranches, or a mix of mezzanine and equity tranches. The remainder reported holding a range of tranches across the capital structure, all in meaningful proportions.

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

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

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

3. Most of the dealers that provided financing to facilitate the purchase of CLO securities for their clients reported that the liquidity and functioning in the CLO market had improved over the past three years. Return to text

 

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

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

 

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

 

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

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

 

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

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

Hedge Funds

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Most Important	6	85.7%
      2nd Most Important	0	0.0%
      3rd Most Important	1	14.3%
      Total	7	100.0%

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

1. Mutual funds

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

   
   
2. ETFs

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

   
   
3. Pension plans

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

   
   
4. Endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	18	94.7%
   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?

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

      
      
   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

      
      
   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   8. Other

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

      
      

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.1%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	86.4%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	22	100.0%

   
   
2. Hedge funds

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

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	3	14.3%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   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%

   
   

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

   
   
2. Hedge funds

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

   
   
3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

   
   
5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	81.0%
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.8%
   Decreased Considerably	1	4.8%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

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

   
   
7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

   
   

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

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

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	2	9.5%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
2. Acceptable collateral

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

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

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

   
   
4. Triggers and covenants

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
   Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Remained Basically Unchanged	21	100.0%
   Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
   Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	21	100.0%

   
   
6. Other

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased Considerably	0	Undefined
   Increased Somewhat	0	Undefined
   Remained Basically Unchanged	0	Undefined
   Decreased Somewhat	0	Undefined
   Decreased Considerably	0	Undefined
   Total	0	Undefined

   
   

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	18	78.3%
   4. Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
   5. Decreased considerably	1	4.3%
   6. Not applicable	3	13.0%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	19	82.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	3	13.0%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	2	8.7%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	21	91.3%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	2	8.7%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	1	4.3%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	4	17.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	17	73.9%
   4. Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	4	17.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	5	21.7%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	2	8.7%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	5	21.7%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	13	56.5%
   4. Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	9	39.1%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	14	60.9%
   4. Decreased somewhat	1	4.3%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	8	34.8%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	15	65.2%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	1	4.3%
   6. Not applicable	7	30.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	7	30.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	1	4.3%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	15	65.2%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	7	30.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

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

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   1. Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   2. Increased somewhat	0	0.0%
   3. Remained basically unchanged	16	69.6%
   4. Decreased somewhat	0	0.0%
   5. Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   6. Not applicable	7	30.4%
   Total	23	100.0%

   
   

Nonstandard Collateral

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

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

   
   
2. Interest rate

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

   
   
3. Equity

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

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

   
   
6. Commodity

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

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

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

   
   

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

1. FX

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

   
   
2. Interest rate

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

   
   
3. Equity

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

   
   
4. Credit referencing corporates

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

   
   
5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

   
   
6. Commodity

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

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

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

   
   

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	22	100.0%
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	2	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	3	13.6%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	16	72.7%
      Eased Somewhat	2	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	1	4.5%
      Total	22	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	20	90.9%
      Eased Somewhat	2	9.1%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	21	95.5%
      Eased Somewhat	1	4.5%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	22	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	4	21.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2%
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5%
      Eased Considerably	1	5.3%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	4	21.1%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	63.2%
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5%
      Eased Considerably	1	5.3%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5%
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5%
      Eased Somewhat	2	10.5%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	19	100.0%

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7%
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	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	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	53.3%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	1	6.7%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3%
      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	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	8	53.3%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	12	85.7%
      Eased Somewhat	2	14.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	14	100.0%

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      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	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	9	60.0%
      Eased Somewhat	3	20.0%
      Eased Considerably	1	6.7%
      Total	15	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

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

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

      
      
   2. Maximum maturity

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

      
      
   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0%
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0%
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	86.7%
      Eased Somewhat	2	13.3%
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0%
      Total	15	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   5. Other

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

      
      

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

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

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

   
   

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

   
   
2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

   
   
3. Equities

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

   
   
4. Agency RMBS

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

   
   
5. Non-agency RMBS

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

   
   
6. CMBS

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

   
   
7. Consumer ABS

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

   
   

Optional Question

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

Special Questions¹

Over the past three years, the collateralized loan obligation (CLO) market has experienced various regulatory changes. The special questions cover developments in the CLO market over the past three years. Questions 81 through 86 ask about warehouse financing, questions 87 through 94 ask about funding for your clients' purchase of CLOs, and questions 95 through 98 ask about holdings of CLOs at your institution.

Warehouse Financing

“Warehouse financing facilities” in questions 81 through 86 refers to secured financing facilities provided by dealers for funding of leveraged loans on an interim basis to allow the accumulation of assets for eventual securitization into CLOs.

81. Does your institution provide warehouse financing facilities?

82. Since November 1, 2014, how have the price or nonprice terms of warehouse financing facilities you provide to your clients changed?

83. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms of warehouse financing facilities have tightened or eased (as reflected in your response to question 82) how important are the following reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in credit quality of clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	3	100.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	33.3%
      Not important	2	66.7%
      Total	3	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	3	100.0%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
   4. Less aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	33.3%
      Not important	2	66.7%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in credit quality of clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	2	25.0%
      Important	1	12.5%
      Somewhat important	2	25.0%
      Not important	3	37.5%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	12.5%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	5	62.5%
      Not important	2	25.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	3	37.5%
      Not important	5	62.5%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   4. More aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	3	37.5%
      Important	1	12.5%
      Somewhat important	4	50.0%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	33.3%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	2	66.7%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      

84. Since November 1, 2014, how has demand by your clients for warehouse financing facilities changed?

85. To the extent that demand by your clients for warehouse financing facilities has increased or decreased (as reflected in your response to question 84), how important are the following reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for an increase
   1. Decreased availability of financing facilities provided by other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	2	16.7%
      Not important	10	83.3%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	2	16.7%
      Somewhat important	7	58.3%
      Not important	3	25.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   3. Higher expected return on CLO securities due to realized or anticipated rate increases

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	2	16.7%
      Somewhat important	4	33.3%
      Not important	6	50.0%
      Total	12	100.0%

      
      
   4. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	4	44.4%
      Important	1	11.1%
      Somewhat important	1	11.1%
      Not important	3	33.3%
      Total	9	100.0%

      
      
2. Possible reasons for a decrease
   1. Increased availability of financing facilities provided by other institutions

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

      
      
   2. Decreased willingness of clients to take on risk

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

      
      
   3. Increased costs associated with complying with the risk retention rule

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

      
      
   4. Reduced supply of leveraged loans associated with the leveraged lending guidance

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

      
      
   5. Other reasons (please specify)

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

      
      

86. Since November 1, 2014, how has your institution’s willingness to provide warehouse financing facilities changed?

Providing Financing to Facilitate the Purchase of CLOs for Your Clients

87. Does your institution provide financing to facilitate the purchase of CLOs for your clients?

88. Since November 1, 2014, how have price and nonprice terms under which CLOs are funded at your institution changed?

89. To the extent that the price or nonprice terms under which CLOs are funded at your institution have tightened or eased (as reflected in your response to question 88), how important are the following reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for tightening
   1. Deterioration in credit quality of clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	2	100.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	2	100.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   4. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   5. Less aggressive competition from other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	2	100.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   6. Reduced supply of CLO securities associated with regulations including the risk retention rule and leveraged lending guidance

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	2	100.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   7. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
2. Possible reasons for easing
   1. Improvement in credit quality of clients

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	9.1%
      Important	2	18.2%
      Somewhat important	4	36.4%
      Not important	4	36.4%
      Total	11	100.0%

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	9.1%
      Important	1	9.1%
      Somewhat important	7	63.6%
      Not important	2	18.2%
      Total	11	100.0%

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

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

      
      
   4. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

      
      
   5. More aggressive competition from other institutions

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

      
      
   6. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	33.3%
      Important	1	33.3%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	1	33.3%
      Total	3	100.0%

      
      

90. Since November 1, 2014, how has demand by your clients for funding of CLO securities changed?

91. To the extent that demand for funding of CLO securities by your clients has increased or decreased (as reflected in your response to question 90), how important are the following reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for an increase
   1. Decreased availability of financing facilities by other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	9	100.0%
      Total	9	100.0%

      
      
   2. Increased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	3	33.3%
      Important	2	22.2%
      Somewhat important	4	44.4%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	9	100.0%

      
      
   3. Higher expected return on CLO securities due to realized or anticipated rate increases

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	2	22.2%
      Important	3	33.3%
      Somewhat important	2	22.2%
      Not important	2	22.2%
      Total	9	100.0%

      
      
   4. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	100.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
2. Possible reasons for a decrease
   1. Increased availability of financing facilities by other institutions

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	100.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   2. Decreased willingness of clients to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	1	100.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   3. Lower expected return on CLO securities due to higher management fees associated with complying with the risk retention rule

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	100.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	1	100.0%

      
      
   4. Other reasons (please specify)

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

      
      

92. Since November 1, 2014, how has demand for funding of CLO securities by each of the following types of your clients changed? (Note: n/a indicates “not applicable”--that is, your institution has few or no clients of the specified type.)²

1. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	1	7.7%
   Increased somewhat	6	46.2%
   Remained basically unchanged	5	38.5%
   Decreased considerably	1	7.7%
   Total	13	100.0%

   
   
2. Exchange-traded products

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	1	33.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	1	33.3%
   Decreased considerably	1	33.3%
   Total	3	100.0%

   
   
3. Pension plans and endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	33.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	4	66.7%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
4. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	33.3%
   Remained basically unchanged	4	66.7%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	6	100.0%

   
   
5. Mutual funds and separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percent
   Increased considerably	0	0.0%
   Increased somewhat	2	25.0%
   Remained basically unchanged	6	75.0%
   Decreased considerably	0	0.0%
   Total	8	100.0%

   
   
6. Nonfinancial corporations

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

   
   
7. Other (please specify)

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

   
   

93. To the extent that your institution is currently providing funding for the purchase of CLO tranches, where do the securities being financed stand in the CLO capital structure? (Note: “mezzanine tranches” refers to all tranches between AAA-rated tranches and equity tranches, including AA-, A-, BBB-, BB-rated tranches; “equity tranches” refers to the most junior piece of a CLO capital structure.)

94. Since November 1, 2014, how have liquidity and functioning in the CLO securities market changed?

Direct Ownership of CLOs by Your Institution

95. Does your institution directly own CLO securities?

96. Since November 1, 2014, how has demand for CLO securities by your institution changed?

97. To the extent that the demand for CLOs by your institution has increased or decreased (as reflected in your response to question 96), how important are the following reasons for the change?

1. Possible reasons for an increase
   1. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	12.5%
      Somewhat important	3	37.5%
      Not important	4	50.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	12.5%
      Important	1	12.5%
      Somewhat important	2	25.0%
      Not important	4	50.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   3. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	2	25.0%
      Important	2	25.0%
      Somewhat important	3	37.5%
      Not important	1	12.5%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   4. Higher expected return on CLO securities due to realized or anticipated rate increases

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	4	50.0%
      Not important	4	50.0%
      Total	8	100.0%

      
      
   5. Other reasons (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	50.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	0	0.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
2. Possible reasons for a decrease
   1. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	50.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	1	50.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   3. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	1	50.0%
      Somewhat important	0	0.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   4. Lower expected return on CLO securities due to higher management fees associated with complying with the risk retention rule

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   5. Reduced supply of CLO securities associated with regulations including the risk retention rule and leveraged lending guidance

      	Number of Respondents	Percent
      Very important	0	0.0%
      Important	0	0.0%
      Somewhat important	1	50.0%
      Not important	1	50.0%
      Total	2	100.0%

      
      
   6. Other reasons (please specify)

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

      
      

98. Where do the securities being purchased for your institution stand in the CLO capital structure? (Note: “mezzanine tranches” refers to all tranches between AAA-rated tranches and equity tranches, including AA-, A-, BBB-, BB-rated tranches; “equity tranches” refers to the most junior piece of a CLO capital structure.)

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

2. Due to a technical error, respondents were not offered the option of “declined somewhat” when responding to question 92. Return to text

Back to Top