Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms September 2016
|
|
- Juniper Page
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Page 1 of 93 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms September 2016 Print Summary Results of the September 2016 Survey Summary The September 2016 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms collected qualitative information on changes over the previous three months in credit terms and conditions in securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets. In addition to the core questions, the survey included a set of special questions about the effects on dealer firms of the money market fund (MMF) reforms required by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which must be implemented by mid-october The 23 institutions participating in the survey account for almost all dealer financing of dollar-denominated securities to nondealers and are the most active intermediaries in OTC derivatives markets. (Note that 2 of the 23 participants were added to the September round of the survey.) The survey was conducted between August 23, 2016, and September 6, The core questions asked about changes between June 2016 and August Core Questions (Questions 1 79) 2 Responses to the core questions in the September survey offered a few insights regarding the developments in dealer-intermediated markets over the past three months: Price and nonprice terms on securities financing transactions and OTC derivatives were basically unchanged across all classes of counterparties. The use of financial leverage by all classes of counterparties was also reported to have changed little. Initial margin requirements on OTC derivatives were said to be basically unchanged for average and most-favored clients. In addition, the majority of respondents noted that the volume, duration, and persistence of mark and collateral disputes with all counterparty types were basically unchanged. With respect to securities financing transactions, about one-fourth of dealers reported an increase in collateral spreads over the relevant benchmark (financing rates) for high-yield (HY) bonds for both average and preferred clients. Smaller fractions of respondents reported similar increases for high-grade bonds, non-agency residential-mortgage-backed securities (RMBS), and commercial mortgage-backed securities. Other terms under which various types of securities are funded remained largely unchanged since the previous survey. More than one-fourth of dealers reported increased demand to fund non-agency RMBS, while about one-fifth noted greater demand to fund both high-grade and HY bonds as well as consumer asset-backed securities (ABS). Smaller fractions of dealers reported increased demand to fund agency RMBS and equities. A net fraction of more than one-fourth of respondents noted an improvement in liquidity and functioning in the underlying market for consumer ABS. Of note, despite robust issuance in the primary market, a net share of close to one-fifth of respondents reported a deterioration in liquidity and market functioning in the HY bond market over the past three months. For all other products, market functioning and liquidity were little changed. Special Questions on Money Market Fund Reforms (Questions 81 86) The SEC s 2014 MMF reforms have led to changes in the MMF industry, and more changes may occur before the October 2016 deadline for implementing key provisions of the reforms. These developments may have already affected dealers use of short-term funding to finance their activities and may have additional effects in coming months. The September 2016 survey included a set of special questions intended to help us understand the effects of the MMF reforms on institutions use of short-term funding instruments. With respect to how their use of short-term funding instruments and counterparties has changed over the past year, dealers reported the following: The use of various short-term funding instruments has changed noticeably over the past year. Two-fifths of dealers indicated that they had reduced the use of commercial paper (CP) as a source of funding, while one-fourth noted a decline in the use of certificates of deposit (CDs). By contrast, small net fractions of dealers reported an increase in the use of Treasury and agency repos as well as other types of repos.
2 Page 2 of 93 Of the respondents who reported decreased use of CP and CDs, almost all pointed to MMF reforms as at least a somewhat important reason for the decline. In addition, one-half of such respondents pointed to other post-crisis regulatory reforms and institution-specific internal factors as important reasons. Of the respondents who reported increased use of Treasury and agency repos, one-half indicated that MMF reforms were a very important reason for the increase. 3 Among the dealers who reported increased use of other types of repos, one-half noted that other post-crisis reforms and institution-specific internal factors were very important reasons for the change. 4 In terms of counterparties, net fractions of roughly two-fifths and one-third of respondents reported a decrease in funding obtained from money funds via CDs and CP, respectively. By contrast, small net fractions of dealers indicated that Treasury and agency repo funding from money funds had increased. With respect to counterparties other than money funds, a net fraction of about one-fourth of respondents noted that funding from corporations via CDs had increased. Small net fractions of respondents also pointed to increases in funding from corporations and other investment funds via repos other than those backed by Treasury and agency securities. By contrast, dealers indicated that they were receiving less funding via Treasury and agency repos from securities lenders. With respect to how dealers anticipate their use of short-term funding instruments and counterparties to change for the remainder of the year as a result of changes related to MMF reform, respondents indicated the following: About one-fifth of dealers expect their use of Treasury and agency repos to increase, while the vast majority of dealers anticipate the use of other types of repos to remain basically unchanged. More than two-fifths of dealers that use CDs as a funding source expect a decline, and a net fraction of about one-third of dealers that use CP as a funding source anticipate a decline. Several respondents expect to increase their use of other short-term funding instruments like corporate deposits and equity-linked notes. With respect to counterparties, one-fifth of respondents expect Treasury and agency repos provided by MMFs to increase. Conversely, at least one-fourth of dealers anticipate money funds to decrease funding via each of the other types of instruments listed in the survey. A net fraction of one-fourth of respondents expect pension funds to reduce their lending to dealers via CP; a smaller net fraction expect pension funds to reduce their lending via CDs. Dealers were also asked to estimate how they expect price and nonprice terms they will face for the rest of the year to change in response to MMF reforms. Respondents reported the following: One-fourth of respondents anticipate financing rates for Treasury and agency repos to ease somewhat during the remainder of the year. By contrast, more than half of dealers expect rates on CDs and CP to increase. With respect to nonprice terms, one-fifth of dealers foresee an easing of nonprice terms (for example, maximum maturity) for CP, and a smaller net fraction of dealers anticipate easing for CDs. This document was prepared by Charles Press, Division of Monetary Affairs, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Assistance in developing and administering the survey was provided by staff members in the Statistics Function and the Markets Group at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Exhibit 1: Management of Concentrated Credit Exposures and Indicators of Supply of Credit
3 Page 3 of 93 Accessible version Exhibit 2: Use of Financial Leverage
4 Page 4 of 93 Accessible version Exhibit 3: Measures of Demand of Funding and Market Functioning
5 Page 5 of 93 Accessible version Results of the September 2016 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms Counterparty Types Over-the-Counter Derivatives Securities Financing Optional Question
6 Page 6 of 93 Special Questions 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 overthe-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? In this Section: Dealers and Other Financial Intermediaries Central Counterparties and Other Financial Utilities Hedge Funds Trading Real Estate Investment Trusts Mutual Funds, Exchange- Traded Funds, Pension Plans, and Endowments Insurance Companies Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers Nonfinancial Corporations Mark and Collateral Disputes Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 2 8.7% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 1 4.3% Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
7 Page 7 of 93 Total % 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? To a considerable extent 1 4.3% To some extent % To a minimal extent % Not at all % Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 1 4.3% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 1 4.3% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
8 Page 8 of Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning 7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other (please specify) Number of Respondents Percent
9 Page 9 of 93 B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2nd Most Important % 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding 5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 3rd Most Important % 6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
10 Page 10 of More-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other (please specify) Most Important % 7. How has the intensity of efforts by hedge funds to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 2 8.7% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 1 4.3% Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0%
11 Page 11 of 93 Increased somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 2 8.7% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 1 4.3% Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 1 5.3% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties Number of Respondents Percent
12 Page 12 of Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk Most Important % 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning 7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions
13 Page 13 of Other (please specify) B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding 5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
14 Page 14 of Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning 7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other 14. How has the intensity of efforts by trading REITs to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 5.3% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total %
15 Page 15 of 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 1 4.3% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties
16 Page 16 of Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk Most Important % 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning 2nd Most Important % 7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other Number of Respondents Percent
17 Page 17 of 93 B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding 5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning
18 Page 18 of More-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other 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? Increased considerably 1 4.3% Increased somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Mutual funds Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 1 4.5% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. ETFs Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
19 Page 19 of 93 Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 0 0.0% Total % C. Pension plans Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 0 0.0% Total % D. Endowments Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total %
20 Page 20 of 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 1 4.3% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
21 Page 21 of Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning 7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties Most Important % 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) Number of Respondents Percent
22 Page 22 of 93 3rd Most Important % 4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding 5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning 7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions 2nd Most Important % 8. Other 26. How has the intensity of efforts by insurance companies to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months? Number of Respondents Percent
23 Page 23 of 93 Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 4.3% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 1 4.3% Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % Separately Managed Accounts Established with Investment Advisers 29. Over the past three months, how have the price terms (for example, financing rates) offered to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of nonprice terms? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 30. Over the past three months, how has your use of nonprice terms (for example, haircuts, maximum maturity, covenants, cure periods, cross-default provisions or other documentation features) with respect to separately managed accounts established with investment advisers across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of price terms? Number of Respondents Percent
24 Page 24 of 93 Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat % Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk Most Important % 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution
25 Page 25 of Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning 2nd Most Important % 7. Less-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other Most Important % B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols)
26 Page 26 of Lower internal treasury charges for funding 5. Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning 7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0%
27 Page 27 of 93 Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 1 5.3% Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 1 4.3% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Tightened considerably 0 0.0% Tightened somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Eased somewhat 0 0.0% Eased considerably 0 0.0% Total %
28 Page 28 of 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? A. Possible reasons for tightening 1. Deterioration in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Reduced willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of more-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Higher internal treasury charges for funding 5. Diminished availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Worsening in general market liquidity and functioning
29 Page 29 of Less-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other B. Possible reasons for easing 1. Improvement in current or expected financial strength of counterparties 2. Increased willingness of your institution to take on risk 3. Adoption of less-stringent market conventions (that is, collateral terms and agreements, ISDA protocols) 4. Lower internal treasury charges for funding
30 Page 30 of Increased availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution 6. Improvement in general market liquidity and functioning Most Important % 7. More-aggressive competition from other institutions 8. Other 38. How has the intensity of efforts by nonfinancial corporations to negotiate more-favorable price and nonprice terms changed over the past three months? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 4.3% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Dealers and other financial intermediaries
31 Page 31 of 93 Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat % Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5% Decreased Considerably 1 4.5% Total % B. Hedge funds Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 2 9.1% Total % C. Trading REITs Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % D. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8% Decreased Considerably 1 4.8% Total % E. Insurance companies Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 4.5% Total % F. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers
32 Page 32 of 93 Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.3% Total % G. Nonfinancial corporations Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 2 9.5% Total % 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? A. Dealers and other financial intermediaries Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 1 4.5% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 4.5% Decreased Considerably 1 4.5% Total % B. Hedge funds Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 2 9.1% Total % C. Trading REITs Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0%
33 Page 33 of 93 Total % D. Mutual funds, ETFs, pension plans, and endowments Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 2 9.5% Total % E. Insurance companies Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 2 9.1% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 4.5% Total % F. Separately managed accounts established with investment advisers Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.3% Total % G. Nonfinancial corporations Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 2 9.5% Total % Back to section top 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 In this Section: New and Renegotiated Master Agreements
34 Page 34 of 93 indexes); question 46 on credit derivatives referencing structured products such as mortgagebacked securities (MBS) and asset-backed securities (ABS) (specific tranches and indexes); question 47 on commodities; and question 48 on total return swaps (TRS) referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans). Question 49 asks about posting of nonstandard collateral pursuant to OTC derivatives contracts. Questions 50 and 51 focus on mark and collateral disputes involving contracts of each of the aforementioned types. Initial Margin Nonstandard Collateral Mark and Collateral Disputes If your institution s terms have tightened or eased over the past three months, please so report them regardless of how they stand relative to longer-term norms. Please focus your response on dollar-denominated instruments; if material differences exist with respect to instruments denominated in other currencies, please explain in the appropriate comment space. New and Renegotiated Master Agreements 41. Over the past three months, how have nonprice terms incorporated in new or renegotiated OTC derivatives master agreements put in place with your institution's client changed? A. Requirements, timelines, and thresholds for posting additional margin Tightened Considerably 1 4.5% Tightened Somewhat 1 4.5% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % B. Acceptable collateral Tightened Somewhat 1 4.5% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % C. Recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits (including from securities financing trades where appropriate agreements are in place) Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % D. Triggers and covenants Tightened Considerably 1 4.5% Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged %
35 Page 35 of 93 Total % E. Other documentation features (including cure periods and cross-default provisions) Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % F. Other Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 0 0.0% Initial Margin 42. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC FX derivatives changed? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 4.8% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 43. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC interest rate derivatives
36 Page 36 of 93 changed? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 4.5% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 44. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC equity derivatives changed? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 1 4.8% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Number of Respondents Percent
37 Page 37 of 93 Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 1 5.3% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 47. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to OTC commodity derivatives changed? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged %
38 Page 38 of 93 Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 48. Over the past three months, how have initial margin requirements set by your institution with respect to TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans) changed? A. Initial margin requirements for average clients Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % B. Initial margin requirements for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration, and/or extent of relationship Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total % 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? Increased considerably 0 0.0% Increased somewhat 0 0.0% Remained basically unchanged % Decreased somewhat 2 8.7% Decreased considerably 0 0.0% Total %
39 Page 39 of 93 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? A. FX Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 1 5.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat % Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % B. Interest rate Increased Considerably 1 4.8% Increased Somewhat % Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8% Decreased Considerably 1 4.8% Total % C. Equity Increased Considerably 1 5.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % D. Credit referencing corporates Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 1 5.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % E. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0%
40 Page 40 of 93 Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.9% Total % F. Commodity Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably % Total % G. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans) Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 7.1% Total % 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? A. FX Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 1 5.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 5.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % B. Interest rate Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 2 9.5% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 1 4.8% Decreased Considerably 1 4.8% Total % C. Equity
41 Page 41 of 93 Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat % Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % D. Credit referencing corporates Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.0% Total % E. Credit referencing securitized products including MBS and ABS Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 5.9% Total % F. Commodity Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably % Total % G. TRS referencing nonsecurities (such as bank loans, including, for example, commercial and industrial loans and mortgage whole loans) Increased Considerably 0 0.0% Increased Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Decreased Somewhat 0 0.0% Decreased Considerably 1 7.1% Total %
42 Page 42 of 93 Back to section top 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? In this Section: High-Grade Corporate Bonds High-Yield Corporate Bonds Equities (Including through Stock Loan) Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Non-Agency Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Commercial Mortgage- Backed Securities Consumer Asset-Backed Securities Mark and Collateral Disputes A. Terms for average clients 1. Maximum amount of funding Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % 2. Maximum maturity Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % 3. Haircuts Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged %
43 Page 43 of 93 Total % 4. Collateral spreads over relevant benchmark (effective financing rates) Tightened Somewhat % Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % 5. Other Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Eased Somewhat % Total % B. Terms for most-favored clients, as a consequence of breadth, duration and/or extent of relationship 1. Maximum amount of funding Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % 2. Maximum maturity Tightened Somewhat 1 5.0% Remained Basically Unchanged % Total % 3. Haircuts Tightened Somewhat 0 0.0% Remained Basically Unchanged %
Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer Financing Terms
BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM DIVISION OF MONETARY AFFAIRS DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS For release at 2:00 p.m. EDT March 29, 2012 Senior Credit Officer Opinion Survey on Dealer
More informationSurvey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD)
Survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD) As a follow-up to the recommendation in the Committee on the Global Financial System
More informationSurvey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD)
Survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD) As a follow-up to the recommendation in the Committee on the Global Financial System
More informationSurvey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD)
Survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC derivatives markets (SESFOD) December 2016 As a follow-up to the recommendation in the Committee on the Global Financial
More informationThe New Landscape. David Bowman, Special Advisor Board of Governors
The New Landscape David Bowman, Special Advisor Board of Governors Estimates of US Dollar LIBOR Exposures, Market Participants Group Report (2014) Derivatives make up roughly 90 percent of all USD LIBOR
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures
Disclosures September 30, 2016 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Background 1 Overview 1 Disclosure Matrix 3 Components of Capital 10 Capital Adequacy 10 Standardized Risk-Weighted Assets 11 Capital Ratios
More informationMiFID II: Information on Financial instruments
MiFID II: Information on Financial instruments A. Introduction This information is provided to you being categorized as a Professional client to inform you on financial instruments offered by Rabobank
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarter ended September 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Liquidity Coverage Ratio 2 High-Quality Liquid Assets
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 Disclosures Year ended 31 December 2009
DBS Group Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries (the Group) have adopted Basel II as set out in the revised Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice to Banks No. 637 (Notice on Risk Based Capital Adequacy Requirements
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended December 31, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures
Disclosures September 30, 2017 Table of Contents Page No. Introduction 1 Background 1 Overview 1 Disclosure Matrix 3 Components of Capital 10 Capital Adequacy Standardized Risk-Weighted Assets 10 Capital
More informationThe University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company Derivative Investment Policy
Effective Date of Policy: August 25, 2016 Date Approved by U. T. System Board of Regents: August 25, 2016 Date Approved by UTIMCO Board: July 21, 2016 Supersedes: approved November 5, 2015 Purpose: The
More informationBasel III Pillar 3 Disclosures Report. For the Quarterly Period Ended December 31, 2015
BASEL III PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES REPORT For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2015 Table of Contents Page 1 Morgan Stanley... 1 2 Capital Framework... 1 3 Capital Structure... 2 4 Capital Adequacy...
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 Disclosures
61 DBS Group Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries (the Group) have adopted Basel II as set out in the revised Monetary Authority of Singapore Notice to Banks No. 637 (Notice on Risk Based Capital Adequacy
More informationSecond Quarter Results 2009
Second Quarter Results 2009 Zurich July 23, 2009 Cautionary statement Cautionary statement regarding forward-looking and non-gaap information This presentation contains forward-looking statements within
More informationRevision of Earnings Forecasts
Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. Revision of Earnings Forecasts TOKYO, October 29, --- Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group, Inc. ( SMFG ) announces a revision of its earnings forecast which was announced
More informationPILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. December 2012 PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended June 30, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 2 Introduction 3 Regulatory Capital 7 Capital Structure 8
More informationBANK OF ENGLAND MARKET NOTICE: EXTENDED COLLATERAL LONG-TERM REPO OPERATIONS
BANK OF ENGLAND MARKET NOTICE: EXTENDED COLLATERAL LONG-TERM REPO OPERATIONS 1 The Bank will continue to hold extended collateral three-month long-term repo open market operations (OMOs) weekly up to and
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarter ended December 31, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Liquidity Coverage Ratio 2 High-Quality Liquid Assets
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures. For the quarter ended June 30, 2018
s For the quarter ended June 30, 2018 E*TRADE FINANCIAL CORPORATION BASEL III STANDARDIZED APPROACH DISCLOSURES For the Quarter Ended June 30, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Introduction 1 Background
More information(A Special Purpose Vehicle Consolidated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York)
(A Special Purpose Vehicle Consolidated by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York) Consolidated Financial Statements as of and for the Years Ended December 31, 2013 and 2012, and Independent Auditors Report
More informationPILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
. The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. December 2012 PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended December 31, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 2 Introduction 3 Regulatory Capital 7 Capital Structure
More informationDerivatives Hedge Funds Face Increased Margin Requirements Under Final Swap Rules (Part One of Two)
The definitive source of Volume 9, Number 7 February 18, 2016 Derivatives Hedge Funds Face Increased Margin Requirements Under Final Swap Rules (Part One of Two) By Fabien Carruzzo and Philip Powers Kramer
More informationShadow Banking and Financial Stability
Shadow Banking and Financial Stability Tobias Adrian, November 8, 2013 The views expressed here are those of the author exclusively and do not necessarily represent those of the Federal Reserve Bank of
More informationCautionary Note on Forward-Looking Statements
Cautionary Note on Forward-Looking Statements Today s presentation may include forward-looking statements. These statements represent the Firm s belief regarding future events that, by their nature, are
More informationPotential Impact to Foreign Exchange Risk Management - Dodd-Frank Bill!
Potential Impact to Foreign Exchange Risk Management - Dodd-Frank Bill! April 7, 2011 Presented by: Mary Ann Dowling, Principal 2011 Treasury Strategies, Inc. All rights reserved. Dodd-Frank Act Passed
More informationLecture notes on risk management, public policy, and the financial system Forms of leverage
Lecture notes on risk management, public policy, and the financial system Allan M. Malz Columbia University 2018 Allan M. Malz Last updated: March 12, 2018 2 / 18 Outline 3/18 Key postwar developments
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended June 30, 2015 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationSurvey Results on the Canadian Repo Market. bank-banque-canada.ca
Survey Results on the Canadian Market 25 April 2017 Disclaimer and Copyright Notice The results of the 2016 Committee on the Global Financial System (CGFS) survey on Market functioning in Canadian markets
More informationThe University of Texas/Texas A&M Investment Management Company Derivative Investment Policy
Effective Date of Policy: August 10, 2018 Date Approved by U. T. System Board of Regents: August 10, 2018 Date Approved by UTIMCO Board: July 26, 2018 Supersedes: approved July 21, 2016 Purpose: The purpose
More informationTom Flynn Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer
Investor Community Conference Call 2008 Risk Review Tom Flynn Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer May 27 2008 Forward Looking Statements Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements Bank of
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended September 30, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationAuthorized for public release by the FOMC Secretariat on 08/12/2016. Indicators of Trends in Dealer-Intermediated Financing and Leverage
October 28, 2010 Indicators of Trends in Dealer-Intermediated Financing and Leverage Matt Eichner, Michael Holscher, and Fabio Natalucci Summary This memorandum seeks to draw information from a variety
More informationCOUNTERPARTY CLEARING SYSTEM IN EUROPE
TR É S O R I S K C O N S E I L COUNTERPARTY CLEARING SYSTEM IN EUROPE IAFEI MANILA OCT 2014 NEW REQUIREMENTS GENERAL CONCEPT FOR ALL INSTITUTIONS The new regulation comes into force during 2013 and 2014.
More informationMorgan Stanley Financial Services Conference
Morgan Stanley Financial Services Conference Managing for value in an uncertain economic and regulatory environment David Mathers, Chief Operating Officer, Investment Bank London March 23, 2010 Cautionary
More informationOfficial Journal of the European Union L 83/71
22.3.2013 Official Journal of the European Union L 83/71 ANNEX IV Reporting Templates: AIFM (Articles 3(3)(d) and 24 of Directive 2011/61/EU) AIFM-specific information to be reported (Articles 3(3)(d)
More informationIn various tables, use of - indicates not meaningful or not applicable.
Basel II Pillar 3 disclosures 2008 For purposes of this report, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms Credit Suisse Group, Credit Suisse, the Group, we, us and our mean Credit Suisse Group AG
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 disclosures 6M 09
Basel II Pillar 3 disclosures 6M 09 For purposes of this report, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms Credit Suisse Group, Credit Suisse, the Group, we, us and our mean Credit Suisse Group
More informationPILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES Year Ended 31 December 2012
p86 PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES Year Ended 31 December 2012 The Group views the Basel framework as part of continuing efforts to strengthen its management culture and ensure that the Group pursues business growth
More informationMORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC (SEC I.D. No ) CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2011 AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT
MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC (SEC I.D. No. 8-15869) CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2011 AND INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT ******** INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT To the Board of
More informationTransparency in the U.S. Repo Market
Transparency in the U.S. Repo Market Antoine Martin Federal Reserve Bank of New York October 11, 2013 The views expressed in this presentation are my own and may not represent the views of the Federal
More informationMORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF JUNE 30, 2017 (UNAUDITED)
MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AS OF JUNE 30, 2017 (UNAUDITED) ******** MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION June
More informationLIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2018 Table of Contents Liquidity Coverage Ratio 1 High Quality Liquid Assets and other liquidity sources 3 Net Cash Outflows
More informationQuantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk. Risk Management. Risk Management Policy and Control Structure. Risk is an inherent part of the Company s business and activities. The
More informationLIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2017 Table of Contents Liquidity Coverage Ratio 1 High Quality Liquid Assets and other liquidity sources 3 Net Cash Outflows
More informationOrder Execution Policy 3 rd January 2018
Nordea Investment Management Order Execution Policy 3 rd January 2018 Contents 1. Purpose... 2 2. Regulatory context... 2 3. Scope... 2 4. Order process... 3 5. Execution decision process... 5 6. Venue
More informationWritten Statement of Managed Funds Association. Standing Committee on Insurance New York State Assembly
Written Statement of Managed Funds Association Standing Committee on Insurance New York State Assembly Hearing Regarding the State s Regulation of the Credit Default Swaps Market December 5, 2008 Submitted:
More informationECONOMIC AND MONETARY DEVELOPMENTS
ECONOMIC AND MONETARY DEVELOPMENTS Monetary and financial developments Box 3 EVIDENCE OF THE IMPACT OF RECENT FINANCIAL MARKET TENSIONS, AS REVEALED BY BANK LENDING SURVEYS IN MAJOR INDUSTRIALISED ECONOMIES
More informationBenchmark reform: transition from IBORs to risk-free rates in the Euro area
Association for Financial Markets in Europe Benchmark reform: transition from IBORs to risk-free rates in the Euro area Richard Hopkin Managing Director and Head of Fixed Income ECB Bond Market Contact
More informationLIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2018 Table of Contents Liquidity Coverage Ratio 1 High Quality Liquid Assets and other liquidity sources 3 Net Cash Outflows
More informationThird Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call November 7, 2017
Third Quarter 2017 Earnings Conference Call November 7, 2017 Important Notice Forward-Looking Statements This presentation contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions
More informationSecuritisation: Benefits for Emerging Markets and Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis
Securitisation: Benefits for Emerging Markets and Lessons from the Global Financial Crisis SEC Securities Markets Workshop Washington DC May 1, 2009 1 Securitisation: Benefits for Emerging Markets Investors
More informationCanada Credit Rating Action Plan
January 27, 2014 Canada Credit Rating Action Plan I: Banks Milestones and Action to be taken changes in standards) 1. Reducing reliance on CRA ratings in laws and regulations (Principle I) Based on the
More informationChimeraARCover:ChimeraARCover 3/24/08 9:05 PM Page C Annual Report
2007 Annual Report Letter from the CEO and President Dear Fellow Shareholders: It gives me great pleasure to write my first annual letter to the shareholders of Chimera Investment Corporation. Chimera
More informationGOLDMAN, SACHS & CO. AND SUBSIDIARIES. Consolidated Financial Statements As of May 25, (unaudited)
Consolidated Financial Statements As of May 25, 2007 CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION As of May 25, 2007 (in millions) Assets Cash and cash equivalents.. $ 2,798 Cash and securities segregated
More informationRegulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures
Regulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures December 31, 2016 Table of Contents Background 1 Overview 1 Corporate Governance 1 Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process 2 Capital Demand 3 Capital Supply
More informationCredit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Subsidiaries (A wholly owned subsidiary of Credit Suisse (USA), Inc.) Unaudited Consolidated Statement of
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Subsidiaries Unaudited Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents... $ 699 Collateralized
More informationSecurities Lending Overview. January 25, 2007
January 25, 2007 1 Securities lending is an investment strategy in which institutional investors can generate incremental revenue from their investment portfolios by making short-term collateralized loans.
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS22932 Credit Default Swaps: Frequently Asked Questions Edward Vincent Murphy, Government and Finance Division September
More informationCase 11-2(a) Instrument 1 Collateralized Debt Obligation
Case 11-2(a) Fair Value Hierarchy Family Finance Co. (FFC), a publicly traded commercial bank located in South Carolina, has a December 31 year-end. FFC invests in a variety of securities to enhance returns,
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures
Disclosures March 31, 2018 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview 1 Disclosure Matrix 3 Components of Capital 10 Capital Adequacy Standardized Risk-Weighted Assets 10 Capital Adequacy Capital Ratios
More informationUNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C FORM 6-K
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 6-K REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Date: August
More informationINVESTOR PRESENTATION
INVESTOR PRESENTATION NYSE: CIM 2nd Quarter 2018 DISCLAIMER This presentation includes forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of the United States Private Securities
More informationFINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR RISKS
FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS AND THEIR RISKS This document presents an overview of the main financial instruments that Amundi uses in providing its investment services and the risks associated with these instruments.
More informationP2.T6. Credit Risk Measurement & Management. Jon Gregory, The xva Challenge: Counterparty Credit Risk, Funding, Collateral, and Capital
P2.T6. Credit Risk Measurement & Management Jon Gregory, The xva Challenge: Counterparty Credit Risk, Funding, Collateral, and Capital Bionic Turtle FRM Study Notes Sample By David Harper, CFA FRM CIPM
More informationTaconic Capital Advisors UK LLP ( TCA UK ) Best Execution Report
Taconic Capital Advisors UK LLP ( TCA UK ) Best Execution Report - 2017 This report includes certain information in respect TCA UK s trade execution during the 2017 period. This information is made available
More informationSUMMARY PROSPECTUS SIIT Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund (SDLAX) Class A
September 30, 2018 SUMMARY PROSPECTUS SIIT Dynamic Asset Allocation Fund (SDLAX) Class A Before you invest, you may want to review the Fund s prospectus, which contains information about the Fund and its
More informationFinancial Performance and Regulatory Disclosures Q2 2016
Financial Performance and Regulatory Disclosures Q2 2016 Caution regarding forward-looking statements This document contains certain forward-looking statements with respect to Manulife Bank of Canada s
More informationASF RMBS Reporting Standard - Data Requirements ASF RMBS Pre-Issuance Disclosure
Transaction 001 Transaction Name Full name of the RMBS transaction. Contact Information 002 Contact Name Name of the department or the point person/s of the information source. 003 Contact Address Mailing
More informationCredit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Subsidiaries (A wholly owned subsidiary of Credit Suisse (USA), Inc.) Unaudited Consolidated Statement of
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Subsidiaries Unaudited Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition Index to Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition Page Consolidated Statement of Financial
More informationConsolidated Citigroup U.S. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Disclosure. For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017
Consolidated Citigroup U.S. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Disclosure For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2017 0 Table of Contents 1. Overview..... 2 2. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Template... 3 3. LCR
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 disclosures
Basel II Pillar 3 disclosures 6M12 For purposes of this report, unless the context otherwise requires, the terms Credit Suisse, the Group, we, us and our mean Credit Suisse Group AG and its consolidated
More informationBasel III Pillar 3 Disclosures Report. For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 2016
BASEL III PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES REPORT For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2016 Table of Contents Page 1 Morgan Stanley... 1 2 Capital Framework... 1 3 Capital Structure... 2 4 Capital Adequacy... 2
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended September 30, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationCounterparty Credit Risk
Counterparty Credit Risk The New Challenge for Global Financial Markets Jon Gregory ) WILEY A John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, Publication Acknowledgements List of Spreadsheets List of Abbreviations Introduction
More informationTREATMENT OF SECURITIZATIONS UNDER PROPOSED RISK-BASED CAPITAL RULES
TREATMENT OF SECURITIZATIONS UNDER PROPOSED RISK-BASED CAPITAL RULES In early June 2012, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the FRB ), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the
More informationFinancial Sector Evolution In the New Regulatory Environment. Darrell Duffie Stanford University June 6, 2014
Financial Sector Evolution In the New Regulatory Environment Narrative for the FRBNY Financial Advisory Roundtable Darrell Duffie Stanford University June 6, 2014 I will attempt to interpret some of the
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended December 31, 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationConsolidated Statement of Financial Condition June 30, 2018
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition June 30, 2018 Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC Established 1869 Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition INDEX Page No. Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition
More informationFinancial Stability Monitoring Fernando Duarte Federal Reserve Bank of New York March 2015
Financial Stability Monitoring Fernando Duarte Federal Reserve Bank of New York March 2015 The views in this presentation do not necessarily represent the views of the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal
More informationLIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE
LIQUIDITY COVERAGE RATIO DISCLOSURE For the quarterly period ended December 31, 2018 Table of Contents Liquidity Coverage Ratio 1 High Quality Liquid Assets and other liquidity sources 3 Net Cash Outflows
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures
Basel III Standardized Approach Disclosures September 30, 2018 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview 1 Disclosure Matrix 3 Components of Capital 10 Capital Adequacy Standardized Risk-Weighted Assets
More informationTable 1: LCR Three Months Ended Average Weighted Amount (millions)
Executive Summary The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Federal Reserve ) requires public disclosure of the liquidity coverage ratio (the LCR ) by depository institution holding companies
More informationRegions Financial Corporation. Liquidity Coverage Ratio Disclosure
Regions Financial Corporation Liquidity Coverage Ratio Disclosure As of and for the quarter ended December 31, 2018 Table of Contents Introduction 3 Main Drivers of LCR 3 High Quality Liquid Assets 4 Net
More informationThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES For the period ended March 31, 2018 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Index of Tables 1 Introduction 2 Regulatory Capital 5 Capital Structure 6 Risk-Weighted
More informationRepurchase Agreements
Repurchase Agreements Educational Session May 13, 2015 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF LIFE INSURERS 101 Constitution Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001-2133 OVERVIEW 2 What Is A Repurchase Transaction? Short-term collateralized
More informationEcon 330 Exam 2 Name ID Section Number
Econ 330 Exam 2 Name ID Section Number MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1) When financial institutions go on a lending spree and expand
More informationCounterparty Credit Risk Management in the US Over-the-Counter (OTC) Derivatives Markets, Part II
November 2011 Counterparty Credit Risk Management in the US Over-the-Counter (OTC) Derivatives Markets, Part II A Review of Monoline Exposures Introduction This past August, ISDA published a short paper
More informationBasel III Pillar 3 Disclosures Report. For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2016
Basel III Pillar 3 Disclosures Report For the Quarterly Period Ended September 30, 2016 BASEL III PILLAR 3 DISCLOSURES REPORT For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016 Table of Contents Page 1
More informationTerm Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: Terms and Conditions 1. Printer version Changes from October November 130 Terms and Conditions
Term Asset-Backed Securities Loan Facility: Terms and Conditions 1 Effective November July 21, 201013, 2009 Printer version Changes from October November 130 Terms and Conditions General Terms and Conditions
More informationBasel III Standardized Approach Disclosures
Disclosures December 31, 2017 Table of Contents Introduction 1 Overview 1 Disclosure Matrix 3 Components of Capital 10 Capital Adequacy Standardized Risk-Weighted Assets 10 Capital Adequacy Capital Ratios
More informationResearch Note. Asia-Pacific Derivatives Survey. April 2019
April 19 Research Note In anticipation of ISDA s 34th Annual General Meeting in Hong Kong, ISDA conducted a survey of derivatives markets in the Asia-Pacific region. The survey reveals that market participants
More informationRegulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures
Regulatory Capital Pillar 3 Disclosures June 30, 2015 Table of Contents Background 1 Overview 1 Corporate Governance 1 Internal Capital Adequacy Assessment Process 2 Capital Demand 3 Capital Supply 3 Capital
More informationDEUTSCHE BANK REPORTS SECOND QUARTER 2009 NET INCOME OF EUR 1.1 BILLION. Risk-weighted assets reduced by EUR 21 billion, or 7%, to EUR 295 billion
Release DEUTSCHE BANK REPORTS SECOND QUARTER 2009 NET INCOME OF EUR 1.1 BILLION Net revenues of EUR 7.9 billion Income before income taxes of EUR 1.3 billion Tier 1 capital ratio of 11.0% Risk-weighted
More informationUNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C FORM 10-Q
UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q È QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended
More informationTwo Harbors Investment Corp.
Two Harbors Investment Corp. Webinar Series October 2013 Fundamental Concepts in Hedging Welcoming Remarks William Roth Chief Investment Officer July Hugen Director of Investor Relations 2 Safe Harbor
More informationConsolidated Statement of Financial Condition December 31, 2014
Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition December 31, 2014 Goldman, Sachs & Co. Established 1869 Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition INDEX Page No. Consolidated Statement of Financial Condition...
More informationBasel II Pillar 3 Disclosures
DBS GROUP HOLDINGS LTD & ITS SUBSIDIARIES DBS Annual Report 2008 123 DBS Group Holdings Ltd and its subsidiaries (the Group) have adopted Basel II as set out in the revised Monetary Authority of Singapore
More informationRegulatory Capital Disclosures Report. For the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2014
REGULATORY CAPITAL DISCLOSURES REPORT For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2014 Table of Contents Page Part I Overview 1 Morgan Stanley... 1 Part II Market Risk Capital Disclosures 1 Risk-based Capital
More informationGlobal Prime Finance Annex to the MiFID Order Execution Policy Corporate & Investment Bank EEA
Level 3 Global Prime Finance Annex to the MiFID Order Execution Policy Corporate & Investment Bank EEA Table of Contents 1. Introduction... 3 2. Scope... 3 3. Principal Stock Lending and Borrowing... 3
More information