Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey, June 2025

Current Release RSS DDP

Summary

The June 2025 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms (SCOOS) collected qualitative information on changes in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets between March 2025 and May 2025.¹ In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions on dealers' provision of credit portfolio trading services.

Core Questions
(Questions 1-79)²

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

• Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were generally unchanged, on net, across almost all types of counterparties. However, small net fractions of dealers reported that price terms (such as financing rates) and nonprice terms (such as haircuts, covenants, or other documentation features) tightened somewhat for hedge funds (see the exhibit “Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit”). Dealers cited deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties as the most important reason for tightening. Roughly one-fifth of dealers reported that the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more favorable price and nonprice terms increased somewhat, as did a small fraction for hedge funds.
• Approximately one-fifth of respondents indicated that resources and attention devoted to managing concentrated credit exposure to dealers and other financial intermediaries (such as large banking institutions) increased somewhat. Roughly one-fifth of respondents indicated that changes in central counterparty practices, including margin requirements and haircuts, have influenced to some extent the credit terms they offer to clients on bilateral transactions that are not cleared.
• Fractions of around one-fifth of respondents indicated that the volume of mark and collateral disputes with dealers, real estate investment trusts, and insurance companies increased at least somewhat, as did a small net fraction for hedge funds.

With respect to clients' use of financial leverage, roughly one-fourth of dealers, on net, reported that the use of leverage by hedge funds decreased somewhat over the period. Dealers reported that the use of leverage remained basically unchanged, on net, for other client types (see the exhibit “Use of Financial Leverage”).

In the OTC derivatives markets, between approximately one-fifth and one-third of dealers reported increases in the volume of mark and collateral disputes relating to contracts referencing foreign exchange, interest rates, and equity. Nearly one-fourth of dealers indicated that the posting of nonstandard collateral increased at least somewhat. Nonprice terms in master agreements, initial margin requirements, and the duration and persistence of mark and collateral disputes were all reported as largely unchanged.

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

• One-fifth of dealers indicated easing of financing spreads on equity collateral for average clients, and a small fraction of dealers indicated easing for most-favored clients.
• Other terms on securities financing for average and most-favored clients were reported as basically unchanged for most collateral types.
• Across all collateral types, the demand for funding, including term funding, remained basically unchanged (see the exhibit “Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning”).
• For all asset classes included in the survey, liquidity and market functioning remained basically unchanged.
• The volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes remained basically unchanged over the period across all collateral types.

Special Questions on Portfolio Trading in Corporate Credit Markets
(Questions 81-92)

Portfolio trading in corporate credit has reportedly experienced considerable growth over the past few years. In this quarter's special questions, dealers were asked about their provision of credit portfolio trading services. Nearly two-thirds of dealers indicated that their institution is engaged in credit portfolio trading (henceforth referred to as “active dealers”).

• Four-fifths of the active dealers reported increases in their firm's provision of credit portfolio trading services to clients (as a share of the firm's total secondary-market transactions in corporate credit) since January 2023.
• Almost all of these dealers indicated that increased demand from clients for portfolio trading and technology advancements that allow for greater efficiency in the pricing and trading of large portfolios were very important factors supporting the increase. Growth of corporate credit exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which make it easier to hedge and offload portfolio trades, better pricing data and improvements in price transparency, and more aggressive competition from other institutions were cited as at least somewhat important factors by a great majority of these dealers.
• About three-fifths of the active dealers indicated that insurance companies, as well as pension funds and endowments, were frequent users of portfolio trading. More than four-fifths pointed to ETF managers and mutual funds, and about three-fourths pointed to hedge funds, as being either occasional or frequent users.
• All of the active dealers reported that high-grade corporate bonds are frequently included in credit portfolio trades, as did three-fifths of them for high-yield corporate bonds. About one-third of the active dealers indicated that municipal bonds and structured financial products are included in at least a few situations, and one-fifth indicated the same for leveraged loans.

When asked about their practices for managing positions acquired through portfolio trades, dealers reported the following:

• Among factors considered in deciding whether to take on a portfolio trade, the composition of bonds in the basket was identified as very important by four-fifths of the active dealers. Market conditions were rated as a very important factor by two-thirds of the active dealers, and the relationship with the client and balance sheet availability were each cited by about one-half as very important. In most cases, the dealers who did not rate these factors as very important categorized them as somewhat important.
• Roughly four-fifths of the active dealers referenced trading in individual portfolio constituents (via trading protocols other than portfolio trading or ETF creation and redemption) as a very important method for managing the inventory acquired through portfolio trades. ETF creation and redemption, as well as offsetting portfolio trades, were cited as at least somewhat important methods by about three-fourths and one-half of the active dealers, respectively.
• In response to a question on how their firm’s willingness to engage in portfolio trades is affected by their ability to create or redeem baskets as an authorized participant in credit ETFs, roughly three-fourths of the active dealers indicated that they at least sometimes trade portfolios with a significant fraction of constituent credits not found in ETF creation or redemption baskets.
• Three-fifths of the active dealers indicated that they frequently hedge credit portfolio trades with credit ETFs when their firm engages in portfolio trading in credit instruments that are not included in ETF creation or redemption baskets. About one-half of the active dealers reported that they use credit default swaps in hedging in at least a few situations.
• On net, one-fifth of the active dealers indicated that their firm’s willingness and ability to engage in portfolio trading (relative to willingness to make markets for individual credit instruments) decreased somewhat during the period of market volatility in April 2025.

Dealers were also asked about the implications of portfolio trading for credit market liquidity and functioning, as well as their expectations on how their involvement in credit portfolio trading will evolve in the future.

• On net, about two-thirds of the full sample of respondents, including both active and other dealers, indicated that portfolio trading led to at least some improvements in credit market liquidity and functioning since January 2023.
• Looking ahead, approximately four-fifths of respondents indicated that they anticipate that their involvement in credit portfolio trading services will increase at least somewhat over the next 12 months.

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

1. The 22 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. The survey was conducted between May 13, 2025, and May 27, 2025. Return to text

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

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

Accessible version

Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage

Accessible version

Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand for Funding and Market Functioning

Accessible version

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

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

 

Counterparty Types

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

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

Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries

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

Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities

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

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

Hedge Funds

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

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

Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

1. Mutual funds

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

2. ETFs

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

3. Pension plans

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   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

4. Endowments

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   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

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

Insurance Companies

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Investment Advisers to Separately Managed Accounts

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Nonfinancial Corporations

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

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

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

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

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

   2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk

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

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

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

   4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding

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

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

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

   6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning

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

   7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions

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

   8. Other (please specify)

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	4.5
   Increased Somewhat	4	18.2
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	77.3
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	4	18.2
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	77.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	4.5
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	22	100.0

3. Trading REITs

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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

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

6. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   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

7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

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

1. Dealers and other financial intermediaries

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

2. Hedge funds

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   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

3. Trading REITs

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   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

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

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

5. Insurance companies

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	4.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	19	90.5
   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	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	10.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	17	89.5
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	19	100.0

7. Nonfinancial corporations

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

Over-the-Counter Derivatives

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

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

New and Renegotiated Master Agreements

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

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

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

2. Acceptable collateral

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

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

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

4. Triggers and covenants

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

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

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

6. Other (please specify)

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

Initial Margin

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	15.0
   Remained Basically Unchanged	16	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	20	100.0

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

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

1. Initial margin requirements for average clients

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

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

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

Nonstandard Collateral

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	5	29.4
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	70.6
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	3	17.6
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.9
   Increased Somewhat	4	23.5
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	70.6
   Decreased Somewhat	0	0.0
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

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

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

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

1. FX

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

2. Interest rate

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	5.9
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4
   Decreased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

3. Equity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	0	0.0
   Increased Somewhat	1	5.9
   Remained Basically Unchanged	14	82.4
   Decreased Somewhat	2	11.8
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	17	100.0

4. Credit referencing corporates

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Remained Basically Unchanged	12	80.0
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

5. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS

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

6. Commodity

   	Number of Respondents	Percentage
   Increased Considerably	1	6.7
   Increased Somewhat	2	13.3
   Remained Basically Unchanged	11	73.3
   Decreased Somewhat	1	6.7
   Decreased Considerably	0	0.0
   Total	15	100.0

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

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

Securities Financing

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

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

High-Grade Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Funding of High-Yield Corporate Bonds

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Equities (Including through Stock Loan)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	50.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	1	50.0
      Eased Somewhat	0	0.0
      Eased Considerably	1	50.0
      Total	2	100.0

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

Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Non-agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	18.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	0	0.0
      Remained Basically Unchanged	13	81.3
      Eased Somewhat	3	18.8
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	16	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Commercial Mortgage-Backed Securities

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Consumer Asset-Backed Securities

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

      	Number of Respondents	Percentage
      Tightened Considerably	0	0.0
      Tightened Somewhat	2	14.3
      Remained Basically Unchanged	11	78.6
      Eased Somewhat	1	7.1
      Eased Considerably	0	0.0
      Total	14	100.0

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

   2. Maximum maturity

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

   3. Haircuts

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

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

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

   5. Other (please specify)

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

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

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

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

Mark and Collateral Disputes

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

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

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

1. High-grade corporate bonds

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

2. High-yield corporate bonds

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

3. Equities

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

4. Agency RMBS

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

5. Non-agency RMBS

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

6. CMBS

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

7. Consumer ABS

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

Optional Question

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

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

Special Questions

Portfolio trading in corporate credit involves trading a basket of corporate credit instruments in a single transaction. This type of trading has reportedly experienced considerable growth over the past few years. In questions 81 through 92, we ask about changes in your institution's provision of credit portfolio trading services since January 2023 and drivers behind such changes, the implications of portfolio trading for credit market liquidity and functioning, and your institution's practices for managing positions acquired through portfolio trades.

Portfolio Trading in Corporate Credit Markets

81. Does your institution engage in credit portfolio trading?

82. Since January 2023, how has your firm's provision of credit portfolio trading services to clients changed as a share of the firm's total secondary-market transactions in corporate credit?

83. If you indicated in your response to question 82 that your firms provision of credit portfolio trading services has increased since January 2023 how important has each of the following factors been in supporting the increase?

84. How would you characterize the frequency of the use of credit portfolio trading by clients of each of the following type?

85. How frequently is each of the following credit instruments included in credit portfolio trades?

86. In your view, how did market-wide changes in portfolio trading activity affect the liquidity and functioning of corporate credit markets since January 2023?

87. What are the most important factors in determining your firm's decisions on whether to take on a portfolio trade?

88. What are the most important methods for managing the inventory acquired through portfolio trades?

89. How is your firms willingness to engage in portfolio trades affected by your ability to create or redeem baskets as an authorized participant in credit ETFs?

90. To the extent that your firm engages in portfolio trading in credit instruments that do not make up ETF creation and redemption baskets, how do you manage risks associated with such trades?

91. How did your firm's willingness and ability to engage in portfolio trading change during the period of market volatility in April 2025 (relative to willingness to make markets for individual credit instruments)?

92. Looking ahead, how do you anticipate your institutions involvement in credit portfolio trading services will evolve over the next 12 months?