Survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and OTC deirvatives markets (SESFOD) - December 2022

December 2022 SESFOD results

(Review period from September 2022 to November 2022)

The December 2022 Survey on credit terms and conditions in euro-denominated securities financing and over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives markets (SESFOD) reports qualitative changes in credit terms between September 2022 and November 2022. Responses were collected from a panel of 26 large banks, comprising 14 euro area banks and 12 banks with head offices outside the euro area.

Overview of results

On balance, overall credit terms and conditions tightened over the SeptemberNovember 2022 review period across all counterparty types. Price and non-price terms tightened for all counterparty types, but in particular for investment funds. The overall tightening of credit terms and conditions - mainly attributed to a deterioration in general market liquidity and functioning - continued the trend reported for the previous six quarters and was in line with the expectations expressed in the September 2022 survey. Overall credit terms are expected to tighten further over the review period from December 2022 to February 2023. The amount of resources dedicated to managing concentrated credit exposures increased in the SeptemberNovember 2022 review period, continuing a development reported since the March 2022 SESFOD. The use of financial leverage decreased for investment funds in the same September-November 2022 review period.

In the case of securities financing transactions, the maximum amount of funding offered against euro-denominated collateral, on balance, decreased for convertible securities in particular but also for high-quality corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and covered bonds. As for the maximum maturity of funding, respondents reported a mixed picture. Haircuts applied to euro-denominated collateral either increased or remained unchanged, while financing rates/spreads increased for financing secured against all collateral types except convertible securities and equities. Survey respondents reported an increased overall demand for funding and demand for funding with a maturity greater than 30 days. The liquidity of all collateral types continued to deteriorate, with the largest percentage of respondents reporting a decrease in the liquidity of high-yield corporate bonds.

Turning to non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives, survey respondents reported that initial margin requirements for most OTC derivatives increased during the September-November 2022 review period, but reported only limited changes with respect to the other questions on non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives.

The December 2022 survey included a number of special questions about marketmaking activities. Survey respondents reported that market-making activities had decreased or remained unchanged for all types of debt securities except domestic government bonds and had increased for derivatives over the past year. They expected market-making activities to broadly increase in 2023. Respondents cited profitability of market-making activities as the main driver of a decrease in marketmaking activities over the last year. They identified the willingness to take on risk and the availability of balance sheet or capital as the main drivers of expected changes in market-making activities in the year ahead.

Respondents expressed confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress for almost all types of debt securities except high-yield corporate bonds and for derivatives. They thereby broadly confirmed their assessment of the past two years with the important exception of asset-backed securities and high-yield corporate bonds, for which they expressed very low confidence. Compared with the December 2021 survey, more respondents reported a very limited” or limited” ability to act as market-makers in times of stress for asset-backed securities, whereas more respondents reported a moderate” or good” ability for other government bonds” and for convertible securities. Willingness to take on risk remained the main reason for banks’ confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress.

Counterparty types

Overall credit terms and conditions tightened over the September-November 2022 review period. Survey respondents reported a tightening of overall credit terms across all counterparty types (Chart A). Both price and non-price terms tightened for all counterparty types identified in the survey, with terms for investment funds tightening the most and those for sovereigns the least. The overall tightening of credit terms and conditions continued the trend reported for the previous six quarters and was in line with the expectations expressed in the September 2022 survey.

Respondents mainly attributed the tightening of credit terms to a deterioration in general market liquidity and functioning, as well as to concerns over an (expected) deterioration in the financial strength of counterparties. Other reasons provided by a number of respondents were reduced competition from other institutions, and reduced availability of balance sheet or capital, as well as less often a lack of willingness to take on risks. One respondent reported that the practices of central counterparties (CCPs), including margin requirements and haircuts, contributed somewhat to the tightening of credit terms during the September-November 2022 review period.

Survey respondents expected overall credit terms to tighten further over the December 2022-February 2023 review period (Chart A). Respondents expected tighter overall credit terms for all counterparty types, especially for banks and dealers, hedge funds, investment funds and non-financial corporations. For all counterparty types, but particularly for investment funds, this expected tightening is driven more by tightening of price terms than by tightening of non-price terms. 

Chart A

Observed and expected changes in overall credit terms offered to counterparties across all transaction types

Source: ECB.

Note: Net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting tightened somewhat” or tightened considerably” and the percentage reporting eased somewhat” or eased considerably”.

The amount of resources dedicated to managing concentrated credit exposures increased in the September-November 2022 review period. Survey respondents reported that resources dedicated to concentrated credit exposures to CCPs increased relatively more than for those to banks and dealers. Survey respondents reported increased attention to the management of credit exposures to CCPs for each of the four 2022 SESFOD rounds.

The use of financial leverage decreased for investment funds over the review period. A quarter of survey participants reported a decrease in the use of financial leverage by investment firms, while one survey participant also reported a decrease in the use of financial leverage by insurance corporations. The use of financial leverage and the availability of unutilised leverage remained on balance unchanged for hedge funds over the review period.

Respondents reported only minor changes in efforts to negotiate more favourable terms with regard to counterparty types. For hedge funds, banks and dealers as well as non-financial corporations, respondents noted a slight net increase by, in particular, most-favoured clients in efforts made to negotiate more favourable terms. On the other hand, the provision of differential terms to investment fund and insurance company clients has decreased slightly.

Respondents also reported, on balance, only limited changes regarding the volume, duration and persistence of valuation disputes. More specifically, respondents reported on balance unchanged developments regarding the volume, duration and persistence of valuation disputes for banks and dealers as well as investment funds. A small net percentage reported an increase in the volume of valuation disputes for hedge funds, insurance companies and non-financial corporations. While the duration and persistence of valuation disputes on balance slightly decreased for non-financial corporations, it increased for insurance companies.

Securities financing

The maximum amount of funding offered against euro-denominated collateral, on balance, decreased for convertible securities in particular but also for highquality corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and covered bonds. On balance, the maximum amount of funding available against euro-denominated government bonds, high-yield corporate bonds and equities remained unchanged over the review period.

Survey participants reported a mixed picture regarding the maximum maturity of funding. A net percentage of respondents reported, on balance, a slight increase in the maximum maturity of funding for government bonds and, to a lesser degree, also for high-quality non-financial corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds and equities. Respondents reported, on balance, an unchanged maximum maturity of funding secured against high-quality financial corporate bonds and covered bonds, as well as a slight decrease in the maximum maturity of funding secured against asset-backed securities and convertible securities.

Haircuts applied to euro-denominated collateral increased or remained unchanged for all collateral types. A small net percentage of survey respondents reported an increase in haircuts applied to high-yield corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and non-domestic government bonds. Smaller net percentages of survey respondents reported increases in haircuts to these asset classes for most-favoured clients. Haircuts remained unchanged for domestic government bonds, high-quality corporate bonds, convertibles securities, equities and covered bonds.

Financing rates/spreads increased for financing secured against all collateral types except convertible securities and equities. The net shares of respondents reporting increased financing rates/spreads were the highest in particular for financing secured against both high-quality and high-yield corporate bonds, assetbacked securities and covered bonds collateral types. However, a small net share of survey respondents on balance reported decreased financing rates/spreads for financing secured against equities. Financing rates/spreads for financing secured against convertible securities remained on balance unchanged.

Survey respondents reported a mixed picture regarding the use of CCPs. A small net percentage of participants reported an increase in the use of CCPs for securities financing transactions with collateral in the form of domestic, high-quality financial corporate bonds, high-yield corporate bonds and covered bonds. By contrast, the use of CCPs for securities financing transactions with other government bonds as collateral decreased slightly. Respondents reported, on balance, an unchanged use of CCPs for securities financing transactions with high-quality government, high-quality non-financial corporate bonds, convertible securities, equities and asset-backed securities as collateral.

Covenants and triggers remained unchanged for all collateral types except convertible securities. Survey respondents reported for both average and mostfavoured clients unchanged conditions for the covenants and triggers under which all collateral types, except euro-denominated convertible securities, were funded. A small percentage of respondents reported that the covenants and triggers, under which collateral in the form of euro-denominated convertible securities was funded, had eased somewhat over the review period.

Survey respondents reported an increased overall demand for funding and demand for funding with a maturity greater than 30 days. A significant share of respondents reported an increase in overall demand for funding offered in particular against high-quality government, domestic government, high-quality financial corporate and covered bonds. By contrast, there was a decrease in demand for funding offered against convertible securities. Respondents also reported, on balance, an increase in the demand for funding with a maturity greater than 30 days. This was most noticeable for funding secured against equities, covered bonds and other government bonds.

The liquidity of all collateral types continued to deteriorate. A large share of survey respondents reported a deterioration in liquidity conditions for all collateral types, with the liquidity of high-quality financial corporate bonds, asset-backed securities and covered bonds showing the strongest deterioration. Respondents also reported a renewed deterioration in the liquidity of domestic government bonds.

(Chart B).

Chart B

Liquidity of collateral

Source: ECB.

Note: Net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting decreased considerably” or decreased somewhat” and the percentage reporting increased somewhat” and increased considerably”.

The volume and duration of collateral valuation disputes remained, on balance, unchanged for most collateral types.

Non-centrally cleared OTC derivatives

Initial margin requirements increased for most OTC derivatives during the September-November 2022 review period. A notable percentage of survey participants reported an increase in initial margin requirements for commodity derivatives, credit derivatives referencing sovereigns and corporates as well as foreign exchange derivatives. Survey respondents reported an increase in initial margin requirements for all other OTC derivative types, except total return swaps referencing non-securities, for which initial margins remained unchanged.

Survey respondents reported a few changes for the maximum amount of exposure and also broadly unchanged developments as for the maximum maturity of trades. Small net percentages of survey participants reported an increase in the maximum amount of exposure for credit derivatives referencing sovereigns and commodity derivatives. Small net percentages of survey participants reported a decrease in the maximum amount of exposure for interest rate derivatives and total return swaps referencing non-securities. The maximum amount of

exposure remained unchanged, on balance, for all other types of derivatives. A small net percentage of survey respondents reported that the maximum maturity of trades for equity derivatives decreased while the maximum maturity of trades for all other types of derivatives remained unchanged.

Liquidity and trading deteriorated somewhat for interest rate derivatives and improved for commodity derivatives. Respondents reported that, on balance, trading conditions for foreign exchange, credit derivatives, equity derivatives as well as total return swaps referencing non-securities remained unchanged. Very small percentages of survey participants reported that trading conditions deteriorated for interest rate derivatives and improved for commodity derivatives.

Respondents reported a broadly unchanged situation as regards the volume of valuation disputes, as well as a slightly increased duration and persistence of valuation disputes. The volume of valuation disputes remained, on balance, unchanged for all derivative types except equity derivatives, for which a small net percentage reported a decrease in the volume of such disputes. Conversely, a small net percentage of respondents reported, on balance, a slight increase in the duration and persistence of valuation disputes for all derivative types except equity derivatives and unchanged conditions for equity derivatives.

Respondents reported unchanged terms for margin call practices and, on balance, slightly tighter terms for all other features in new or renegotiated master agreements. Each of the following changes were reported by one respondent respectively: somewhat tighter acceptable collateral, covenants and triggers, and other documentation changes incorporated into new or renegotiated master agreements. Two respondents reported somewhat tighter conditions as regards the recognition of portfolio or diversification benefits.

The posting of non-standard collateral decreased slightly on balance over the review period.

Special questions

Market-making activities

The December 2022 survey included a number of special questions about marketmaking activities. Respondents were asked how their market-making activities had changed over the past year, how such activities were expected to change in 2023 and how they assessed their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress. Similar special questions have been asked in previous December rounds of the survey, allowing longer-term trends to be identified.

Market-making activities over the past year had decreased or remained unchanged for all types of debt securities except domestic government bonds and had increased for derivatives. The decrease in market-making activities was particularly noticeable for corporate bonds, convertible securities and asset-backed securities. However, a significant net percentage of respondents reported an increase in market-making for domestic government bonds. Market-making activities for high-quality government bonds and covered bonds remained unchanged (see Chart C).

Market-making activities for all asset classes covered by the survey were expected to broadly increase in 2023. Whereas a net 36% of respondents expected overall market-making activities to increase, respondents also reported strong expectations of increases in market-making activities during 2023 for each individual asset class covered by the survey, ranging from a net 26% for high-quality government bonds to 42% for domestic government bonds and 45% for covered bonds (see Chart C). Views expressed among survey respondents for expected changes in market-making activities were most diverse for corporate bonds.

Chart C

Changes and expected changes in market-making activities

Source: ECB.

Notes: Net percentages are defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting increased/likely to increase somewhat” or increased/likely to increase considerably” and those reporting decreased/likely to decrease somewhat” or decreased/likely to decrease considerably”. The values for 2022 are taken from the answers to the questions on expected changes reported in December 2021. The values for the fourth quarter of 2013 represent average changes during the period from the fourth quarter of 2008 to the fourth quarter of 2013.

Profitability of market-making activities was cited as the main driver of a decrease in market-making activities over the past year. Next to profitability of market-making activities, respondents pointed to the unavailability of hedging instruments, reduced willingness of the institution to take on risk and constraints on the availability of balance sheet or capital at the institution as drivers explaining the decrease in market-making activities over the past year.

The willingness to take on risk and the availability of balance sheet or capital were the largest factors behind expected increases in market-making activities in the year ahead. Moreover, survey respondents identified expectations about the profitability of market-making activities and the growing importance of electronic trading platforms as factors.

Respondents expressed confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress for all types of debt securities except high-yield corporate bonds and for derivatives. Respondents’ confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress was strongest in relation to debt securities, with 83% of respondents assessing their capacity as either moderate” or good”. Respondents also expressed a strong confidence in their ability to act as marketmakers in times of stress for derivatives (70%). As for individual debt segments, respondents were, in particular, very confident in their ability to act as market-makers for domestic government bonds, convertible securities and high-quality government bonds, with more than 78% of respondents assessing their ability as either moderate” or good”. Respondents reported lower albeit still strong confidence in their ability to act as market-maker for covered bonds (68%) as well as high-quality financial (50%) and non-financial (40%) corporate bonds in times of stress. Respondents’ confidence in their ability to act as market-maker in times of stress was lowest for asset-backed securities (17%) and high-yield corporate bonds (0%). 

Overall, the survey confirmed respondents’ confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress as reported in the previous two years (see Chart D). While, as in December 2021, more respondents described their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress as either good” or moderate” than limited” or very limited”, the number of respondents selecting moderate” fell compared with a year earlier, while the number selecting good” rose. At the same time, the number of respondents selecting limited” fell compared with a year earlier, while the number selecting very limited” rose, benefiting in particular from a decline in the number describing their ability as limited”. As regards debt securities, a similarly high number of banks described their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress as moderate” compared to one year ago. Compared with the previous December survey, more respondents reported a very limited" or "limited" ability to act as market-makers in times of stress for asset-backed securities, whereas more respondents reported a moderate” or good” ability for other government bonds” and for convertible securities. Concerning derivatives, a slightly lower number of banks characterised their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress as good” or moderate” compared with a year ago. Unlike in the three previous December surveys, a limited number of respondents reported their market-making ability as very limited” for derivatives.

Chart D

Ability to act as a market-maker in times of stress

Willingness to take on risk remained the main reason for banks’ confidence in their ability to act as market-makers in times of stress. Whereas banks typically cited willingness to take on risk, the availability of balance sheet capacity and internal risk management constraints (e.g. Value at Risk) when reporting moderate” or good” market-making ability for debt securities and derivatives in strained market conditions, for derivatives they mentioned the availability of hedging instruments as an additional factor. Banks reporting a very limited" or "limited" ability to act as market-makers in times of stress for asset-backed securities and for high-yield corporate bonds mentioned in particular willingness to take on risk, profitability of market-making activities and the availability of balance sheet capacity as factors.

1   Counterparty types

1.1 Realised and expected changes in price and non-price credit terms

Over the past three months, how have the [price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of [nonprice] terms?

Over the past three months, how have the [non-price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed, regardless of [price] terms?

Over the past three months, how have the [price and non-price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types changed [overall]?

Table 1

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Realised changes	Tightened considerably		Tightened somewhat		Remained basically unchanged		Eased somewhat		Eased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
											Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Banks and dealers
Price terms                                                          4                                 17						79		0		0		+19		+21		24
Non-price terms                                                 0                                  8						92		0		0		+4		+8		24
Overall                                                                 0                                 17						83		0		0		+23		+17		23
Hedge funds
Price terms                                                          5                                 14     Non-price terms                                                 0                                 14     Overall                                                                 0                                 18						81 81 82		0 5 0		0 0 0		+14 +5 +14		+19 +10 +18		21 21 22
Insurance companies
Price terms                                                          4                                 17     Non-price terms                                                 0                                 13     Overall                                                                 0                                 17						79 88 83		0 0 0		0 0 0		+8 -4 +8		+21 +13 +17		24 24 23
Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		4 0 0		30 26 35		65 74 65		0 0 0		0 0 0		+20 0 +16		+35 +26 +35		23 23 23
Non-financial corporations
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		4 0 0		17 18 23		78 82 77		0 0 0		0 0 0		+8 -4 +8		+22 +18 +23		23 22 22
Sovereigns
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		4 0 0		9 13 9		87 87 91		0 0 0		0 0 0		+8 0 +8		+13 +13 +9		23 23 22
All counterparties above
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		4 0 0		17 9 17		78 91 83		0 0 0		0 0 0		+15 0 +15		+22 +9 +17		23 22 23

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "tightened considerably" or "tightened somewhat" and those reporting "eased somewhat" and "eased considerably".

1.1 Realised and expected changes in price and non-price credit terms (continued)

Over the next three months, how are the [price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types likely to change, regardless of [non-price] terms?

Over the next three months, how are the [non-price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types likely to change, regardless of [price] terms?

Over the next three months, how are the [price and non-price] terms offered to [counterparty type/ all counterparties above] as reflected across the entire spectrum of securities financing and OTC derivatives transaction types likely to change [overall]?

Table 2

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Expected changes	Likely to tighten considerably		Likely to tighten somewhat		Likely to remain unchanged		Likely to ease somewhat		Likely to ease considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
											Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Banks and dealers
Price terms                                                          0                                 22						74		4		0		+21		+17		23
Non-price terms                                                 0                                  5						95		0		0		+13		+5		22
Overall                                                                 0                                 22						78		0		0		+21		+22		23
Hedge funds
Price terms                                                          0                                 19     Non-price terms                                                 0                                 10     Overall                                                                 0                                 23						81 90 77		0 0 0		0 0 0		+25 +14 +18		+19 +10 +23		21 21 22
Insurance companies
Price terms                                                          0                                 13     Non-price terms                                                 0                                  9     Overall                                                                 0                                 13						83 91 87		4 0 0		0 0 0		+17 +9 +17		+9 +9 +13		23 22 23
Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		0 0 0		17 9 17		83 91 83		0 0 0		0 0 0		+30 +9 +21		+17 +9 +17		23 22 23
Non-financial corporations
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		0 0 0		18 10 18		77 90 82		5 0 0		0 0 0		+14 +5 +9		+14 +10 +18		22 20 22
Sovereigns
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		0 0 0		9 10 9		91 90 91		0 0 0		0 0 0		+14 +9 +13		+9 +10 +9		22 21 22
All counterparties above
Price terms Non-price terms Overall		0 0 0		13 5 13		83 95 87		4 0 0		0 0 0		+33 +13 +28		+9 +5 +13		23 22 23

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "likely to tighten considerably" or "likely to tighten somewhat" and those reporting "likely to ease somewhat" and "likely to ease considerably".

1.2 Reasons for changes in price and non-price credit terms

To the extent that [price/ non-price] terms applied to [banks and dealers] have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 3

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Banks and dealers	First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
				Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 0 0 20 0 80 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 0 0 0 0 33 33 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	14 7 0 0 14 50 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 4	18 0 0 9 0 45 18 9 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 3	33 0 0 0 0 33 33 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[hedge funds] have tightened or eased over the past three months (as

reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 4

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Hedge funds	First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
				Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 0 0 0 50 50 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	20 10 0 0 10 50 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 4	14 0 0 0 29 43 14 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	33 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 1	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 33 0 0 0 33 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 3	40 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 1

[insurance companies] have tightened or eased over the past three

months (as reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 5

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Insurance companies	First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
				Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 20 0 0 20 60 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 50 50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	13 13 0 0 13 50 13 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 4	13 13 0 0 13 50 13 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 33 0 0 33 33 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	50 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 3	17 17 0 0 17 33 17 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional

investment pools] have tightened or eased over the past three months (as reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 6

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools		First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
	Sep. 2022				Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 13 0 13 13 50 0 13 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	25 0 0 0 0 50 25 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 0 0 0 0 0 33 33 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	13 7 0 7 13 47 13 0 15 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 4	13 7 0 7 7 40 13 13 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	17 17 0 0 17 33 0 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	50 0 0 0 0 50 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 3	22 11 0 0 11 33 11 11 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[non-financial corporations] have tightened or eased over the past

three months (as reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 7

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Non-financial corporations	First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
				Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 20 0 0 20 60 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 25 25 50 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 33 0 0 33 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	18 18 0 0 9 45 9 0 11 0 0 0 0 14 71 14 0 7	8 17 0 0 25 33 17 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 25 0 0 25 50 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 0 0 0 0 33 33 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 50 0 0 0 0 50 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	33 33 0 0 0 33 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 17 67 17 0 6	11 22 0 0 11 33 22 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[sovereigns] have tightened or eased over the past three months (as

reflected in your responses in Section 1.1), what was the [first/ second/ third] most important reason for the change?

Table 8

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Sovereigns	First reason	Second reason	Third reason	Either first, second or third reason
				Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Price terms

Possible reasons for tightening

Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	0 0 0 0 33 67 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	13 13 0 0 13 50 13 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 4	20 0 0 0 20 40 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-price terms
Possible reasons for tightening Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers Possible reasons for easing Current or expected financial strength of counterparties Willingness of your institution to take on risk Adoption of new market conventions (e.g. ISDA protocols) Internal treasury charges for funding Availability of balance sheet or capital at your institution General market liquidity and functioning Competition from other institutions Other Total number of answers	33 0 0 0 33 33 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0	100 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 100 0 0 3	40 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

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?

Table 9

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers Price and non-price terms	) Contributed considerably to tightening	Contributed somewhat to tightening	Neutral contribution	Contributed somewhat to easing	Contributed considerably to easing	Net percentage		Total number of answers
						Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Practices of CCPs                                                   0		9	91	0	0	+7                              +9		11

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "contributed considerably to tightening" or "contributed somewhat to tightening" and those reporting "contributed somewhat to easing" and "contributed considerably to easing".

1.3 Resources and attention to the management of concentrated credit exposures

Over the past three months, how has the amount of resources and attention your firm devotes to the management of concentrated credit exposures to [large banks and dealers/ central counterparties] changed?

Table 10

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers Management of credit          exposures	) Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat	Remained basically unchanged	Increased somewhat	Increased considerably	Net percentage		Total number of answers
						Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Banks and dealers Central counterparties	0 0	0 0	85 81	12 15	4 4	-12                             -15          -12                             -19		26 26

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".

1.4 Leverage

Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for such clients, how has the use of financial leverage by [hedge funds/ insurance companies/ investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools] changed over the past three months?

Considering the entire range of transactions facilitated by your institution for [hedge funds], how has the availability of additional (and currently unutilised) financial leverage under agreements currently in place (for example, under prime brokerage agreements and other committed but undrawn or partly drawn facilities) changed over the past three months?

Table 11

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Financial leverage

Decreased considerably

Decreased somewhat

Remained basically unchanged

Increased somewhat

Increased considerably

Net percentage

Total number of answers

Sep. 2022

Dec. 2022

Hedge funds

Use of financial leverage                                  0                                  5                                90

5

0

+10

0

21

Availability of unutilised leverage                    0                                  5                                90

5

0

+10

0

20

Insurance companies

Use of financial leverage                                  0                                  4                                96

0

0

+5

+4

23

Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools

Use of financial leverage                                  4                                 21                              75

0

0

+14

+25

24

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".

1.5 Client pressure and differential terms for most-favoured clients

How has the intensity of efforts by [counterparty type] to negotiate more favourable price and non-price terms changed over the past three months?

How has the provision of differential terms by your institution to most-favoured (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship) [counterparty type] changed over the past three months?

Table 12

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Client pressure	Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat	Remained basically unchanged	Increased somewhat		Increased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
								Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Banks and dealers
Intensity of efforts to negotiate                                                         0                                  4                                92 more favourable terms					4		0		+9		0		24
Provision of differential terms to                                                         0                                  0                                96 most-favoured clients					4		0		0		-4		24
Hedge funds
Intensity of efforts to negotiate                                                         0                                  5                                86 more favourable terms Provision of differential terms to                                                         0                                  0                                95 most-favoured clients					9 5		0 0		+4 +9		-5 -5		22 22
Insurance companies
Intensity of efforts to negotiate                                                         0                                  4                                96 more favourable terms Provision of differential terms to                                                         0                                  0                              100 most-favoured clients					0 0		0 0		+9 0		+4 0		24 24
Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools
Intensity of efforts to negotiate                                                         0                                  8                                88 more favourable terms Provision of differential terms to                                                         0                                  4                                96 most-favoured clients					4 0		0 0		+13 +10		+4 +4		24 24
Non-financial corporations
Intensity of efforts to negotiate                                                         0                                  4                                92 more favourable terms Provision of differential terms to                                                         0                                  0                                96 most-favoured clients					4 4		0 0		0 0		0 -4		24 24

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".

1.6 Valuation disputes

Over the past three months, how has the [volume/ duration and persistence] of valuation disputes with [counterparty type] changed?

Table 13

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Valuation disputes	Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat	Remained basically unchanged	Increased somewhat		Increased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
								Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Banks and dealers
Volume                                                                0                                  4                                92					4		0		-4		0		24
Duration and persistence                                 0                                  4                                92					4		0		+4		0		24
Hedge funds
Volume                                                                0                                  0                                95     Duration and persistence                                 0                                  0                              100					5 0		0 0		-5 +5		-5 0		20 20
Insurance companies
Volume                                                                0                                  0                                96     Duration and persistence                                 0                                  0                                95					4 5		0 0		-8 -9		-4 -5		23 22
Investment funds (incl. ETFs), pension plans and other institutional investment pools
Volume                                                                5                                  0                                91     Duration and persistence                                 0                                  0                              100					5 0		0 0		-4 -5		0 0		22 22
Non-financial corporations
Volume                                                                0                                  0                                96     Duration and persistence                                 0                                  4                                96					4 0		0 0		0 +8		-4 +4		23 23

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".

2   Securities financing

2.1 Credit terms by collateral type for average and most-favoured clients

Over the past three months, how have the [maximum amount of funding/ maximum maturity of funding/ haircuts/ financing rate/spreads/ use of CCPs] under which [collateral type] are funded changed for [average] clients (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship)?

Table 14

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Remained

Terms for average clients	Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat		basically unchanged		Increased somewhat		Increased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
										Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Domestic government bonds
Maximum amount of funding                           0                                 14					71		14		0		-12		0		14
Maximum maturity of funding                          7                                  0					79		14		0		+6		-7		14
Haircuts                                                               0                                  0					100		0		0		0		0		14
Financing rate/spread                                       0                                 21					50		29		0		-12		-7		14
Use of CCPs                                                       0                                  0					93		7		0		-6		-7		14
High-quality government, sub-national and supra-national bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         4     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			8 0 0 13 5		83 79 92 71 91		8 17 8 17 5		0 0 0 0 0		+7 -7 -4 -11 0		0 -13 -8 -4 0		24 24 24 24 22
Other government, sub-national and supra-national bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         4     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			8 0 0 13 5		83 79 96 71 95		8 17 4 17 0		0 0 0 0 0		+15 -4 0 -4 +4		0 -13 -4 -4 +5		24 24 24 24 22
High-quality financial corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding                           5     Maximum maturity of funding                          10     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			5 0 0 5 0		85 80 100 75 93		5 10 0 15 7		0 0 0 5 0		+5 0 -5 -10 +7		+5 0 0 -15 -7		20 20 20 20 14
High-quality non-financial corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding               5 Maximum maturity of funding         5     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			5 0 0 5 0		86 86 100 71 100		5 10 0 19 0		0 0 0 5 0		0 0 -9 -9 -6		+5 -5 0 -19 0		21 21 21 21 14
High-yield corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         6     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			6 0 0 6 0		89 83 83 67 90		6 11 17 22 10		0 0 0 6 0		0 -6 -11 -6 0		0 -6 -17 -22 -10		18 18 18 18 10

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably". "Domestic government bonds" are euro-denominated government bonds issued by the government of the country where a respondent's head office is.

[average] clients (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship)?

Table 15

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Terms for average clients	Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat	basically unchanged	Increased somewhat	Increased considerably	Net percentage		Total number of answers
						Sep. 2022	Dec. 2022
Convertible securities

Remained

Maximum amount of funding	0	29	71	0	0	+6	+29	14
Maximum maturity of funding	7	7	86	0	0	+6	+14	14
Haircuts	0	0	100	0	0	-6	0	14
Financing rate/spread	0	7	86	7	0	-12	0	14
Use of CCPs	0	0	100	0	0	0	0	11
Equities
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs	0 5 0 0 0	10 5 0 20 0	80 75 100 70 100	10 15 0 10 0	0 0 0 0 0	0 -5 0 -5 0	0 -5 0 +10 0	20 20 20 20 15
Asset-backed securities
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs	7 13 0 0 0	7 0 0 0 0	80 80 87 73 100	7 7 13 20 0	0 0 0 7 0	0 0 0 -6 0	+7 +7 -13 -27 0	15 15 15 15 9
Covered bonds
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs	5 9 0 0 0	5 0 0 5 0	86 82 100 77 94	5 9 0 14 6	0 0 0 5 0	+4 0 -4 -4 +5	+5 0 0 -14 -6	22 22 22 22 16

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".

[most-favoured] clients (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship)?

Table 16

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Terms for most-favoured clients	Decreased considerably	Decreased somewhat		Remained basically unchanged		Increased somewhat		Increased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
										Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Domestic government bonds
Maximum amount of funding                           0                                  7					79		14		0		-12		-7		14
Maximum maturity of funding                          7                                  0					79		14		0		0		-7		14
Haircuts                                                               0                                  0					100		0		0		0		0		14
Financing rate/spread                                       0                                 21					57		21		0		0		0		14
Use of CCPs                                                       0                                  0					100		0		0		0		0		14
High-quality government, sub-national and supra-national bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         4     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			9 0 0 13 5		83 78 96 65 95		9 17 4 22 0		0 0 0 0 0		+12 -4 0 -4 0		0 -13 -4 -9 +5		23 23 23 23 22
Other government, sub-national and supra-national bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         4     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			9 0 0 13 5		83 78 100 70 95		9 17 0 17 0		0 0 0 0 0		+16 -4 0 -4 +4		0 -13 0 -4 +5		23 23 23 23 22
High-quality financial corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding                           5     Maximum maturity of funding                          11     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			5 0 0 5 0		84 79 100 68 92		5 11 0 21 8		0 0 0 5 0		+5 0 -5 -15 +7		+5 0 0 -21 -8		19 19 19 19 13
High-quality non-financial corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         5     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			5 0 0 5 0		90 85 100 70 100		5 10 0 20 0		0 0 0 5 0		0 0 -10 -14 -7		0 -5 0 -20 0		20 20 20 20 13
High-yield corporate bonds
Maximum amount of funding               0 Maximum maturity of funding         6     Haircuts                                                               0     Financing rate/spread                                       0     Use of CCPs                                                       0			6 0 0 6 0		89 83 89 61 91		6 11 11 28 9		0 0 0 6 0		0 -6 -6 -11 0		0 -6 -11 -28 -9		18 18 18 18 11

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably". "Domestic government bonds" are euro-denominated government bonds issued by the government of the country where a respondent's head office is.

[most-favoured] clients (as a consequence of breadth, duration, and extent of relationship)?

Table 17

(in percentages, except for the total number of answers)

Terms for most-favoured clients	Decreased considerably		Decreased somewhat		Remained basically unchanged		Increased somewhat		Increased considerably		Net percentage				Total number of answers
											Sep. 2022		Dec. 2022
Convertible securities
Maximum amount of funding		0		29		71		0		0		+6		+29		14
Maximum maturity of funding		0		14		86		0		0		+6		+14		14
Haircuts		0		0		100		0		0		-6		0		14
Financing rate/spread		0		7		86		7		0		-12		0		14
Use of CCPs		0		0		100		0		0		0		0		11
Equities
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs		0 5 0 0 0		10 5 0 20 0		80 75 100 70 100		10 15 0 10 0		0 0 0 0 0		+5 -5 0 -5 0		0 -5 0 +10 0		20 20 20 20 15
Asset-backed securities
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs		7 14 0 0 0		7 0 0 0 0		79 79 93 71 100		7 7 7 29 0		0 0 0 0 0		0 0 0 -6 0		+7 +7 -7 -29 0		14 14 14 14 8
Covered bonds
Maximum amount of funding Maximum maturity of funding Haircuts Financing rate/spread Use of CCPs		5 10 0 0 0		5 0 0 5 0		86 81 100 76 93		5 10 0 19 7		0 0 0 0 0		+8 -4 -4 -4 +5		+5 0 0 -14 -7		21 21 21 21 15

Note: The net percentage is defined as the difference between the percentage of respondents reporting "decreased considerably" or "decreased somewhat" and those reporting "increased somewhat" and "increased considerably".