Select regulatory documents by category:
Indirect Rule Violations: Rules G-37 and G-38
The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board’s (“MSRB” or “Board”) statutory mandate is to protect investors and the public interest in connection with dealers’ activities in the municipal securities market. The municipal securities market is one of the world’s leading securities markets. Investors hold approximately $1.6 trillion worth of municipal securities—either through direct ownership or through investment in institutional portfolios. These investors provide much needed capital to more than 50,000 state and local governments. Maintaining municipal market integrity is an exceptionally high priority for the Board as it seeks to foster a fair and efficient municipal securities market through dealer regulation.
In 1994, the MSRB adopted Rule G-37 in an effort to remove the real or perceived conflict of interest of issuers who receive political contributions from dealers and award municipal securities business to such dealers. As noted by the Court reviewing Rule G-37, “underwriters’ campaign contributions self-evidently create a conflict of interest in state and local officials who have power over municipal securities contracts and a risk that they will award the contracts on the basis of benefit to their campaign chests rather than to the governmental entity.”[1] Pay-to play harms the integrity of the underwriter selection process.
In general, Rule G-37 prohibits brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) from engaging in municipal securities business with issuers if certain political contributions have been made to officials of such issuers; prohibits dealers and municipal finance professionals (“MFP”) from soliciting or bundling contributions to an official of an issuer with which the dealer is engaging or seeking to engage in municipal securities business; and requires dealers to record and disclose certain political contributions, as well as other information, to allow public scrutiny of political contributions and the municipal securities business of a dealer. The rule also seeks to ensure that payments made to political parties by dealers, MFPs, and political action committees (“PAC”) not controlled by the dealer or MFP do not represent attempts to make indirect contributions to issuer officials in contravention of Rule G-37 by requiring dealers to record and disclose all payments made to state and local political parties.[2] The party payment disclosure requirements were intended to assist in severing any connection between payments to political parties (even if earmarked for expenses other than political contributions) and the awarding of municipal securities business.[3]
Although Rule G-37 initially included certain limited disclosure requirements for consultants used by dealers to obtain municipal securities business, in 1996, the MSRB adopted a separate Rule G-38, on consultants, to prevent persons from circumventing Rule G-37 through the use of consultants. Rule G-38 currently requires dealers who use consultants[4] to evidence the consulting arrangement in writing, to disclose, in writing, to an issuer with which it is engaging or seeking to engage in municipal securities business information on consulting arrangements relating to such issuer, and to submit to the Board, on a quarterly basis, reports of all consultants used by the dealer, amounts paid to such consultants, and certain political contribution and payment information from the consultant.
The impact of Rules G-37 and G-38 has been very positive. The rules have altered the political contribution practices of municipal securities dealers and opened discussion about the political contribution practices of the entire municipal industry.
While the Board is pleased with the success of these rules, it also is concerned with increasing signs that individuals and firms subject to the rules may be seeking ways around Rule G-37 through payments to political parties or non-dealer controlled PACs that find their way to issuer officials, significant political contributions by dealer affiliates (e.g., bank holding companies and affiliated derivative counterparty subsidiaries) to both issuer officials and political parties, contributions by associated persons of the dealer who are not MFPs and by the spouses and family members of MFPs to issuer officials, and the use of consultants who make or bundle political contributions. In addition to dealer and dealer-related giving, the Board is also concerned about media and other reports regarding significant giving by other market participants, including independent financial advisors, swap advisors, swap counterparties, investment contract providers and public finance lawyers.
The MSRB is mindful that Rule G-37’s prohibitions involve sensitive constitutional issues and is reluctant to significantly broaden the scope of the rule. The rule was constructed and will continue to be reviewed with full regard for and consideration of an individual’s right to participate fully in our political processes. The Board, however, wishes to remind dealers that Rule G-37, as currently in effect, covers indirect as well as direct contributions to issuer officials, and to alert dealers that it has expressed its concern to the entities that enforce the Board’s rules that some of the increased political giving may indicate a rise in indirect Rule G-37 violations. While Rule G-37 was adopted to deal specifically with contributions made to officials of issuers by dealers and MFPs, and PACs controlled by dealers or MFPs, the rule also prohibits MFPs and dealers from using conduits—be they parties, PACs, consultants, lawyers, spouses or affiliates—to contribute indirectly to an issuer official if such MFP or dealer can not give directly to the issuer without triggering the ban on business. The MSRB will continue to work with the enforcement agencies to identify and halt abusive practices. If, at a later date, the Board learns of specific problematic dealer practices that it believes must be addressed more directly, the Board may proceed with additional rulemaking relating to Rules G-37 and G-38.
The Board strongly believes that pay-to-play undermines the integrity of the municipal securities industry. Such practices are regulated not only by the specific parameters of Rule G-37, but also by the fair practice principles embodied in the MSRB’s Rule G-17, on fair dealing. Similarly, the MSRB reminds issuers and dealers that the SEC has previously advised that, with respect to primary offering disclosure, increased attention needs to be directed at disclosure of potential conflicts of interest and material financial relationships among issuers, advisors and underwriters, including those arising from political contributions.[5] These issuer conflicts of interest can and do arise not only from contributions made by municipal securities dealers, but also from payments by unregulated municipal securities market participants.
The costs of political campaigns are skyrocketing across the country. The MSRB is aware of reports that elected officials, or persons acting on behalf of elected officials, are putting pressure on dealers and MFPs to find ways to contribute to the costs associated with political campaigns. The Board also recognizes that there is significant political giving that is not by, or directed by, municipal securities dealers. Thus, the MSRB wishes to encourage state and local governments to take a fresh look at these issues and see whether their policies and procedures should be revised to help maintain the integrity of the underwriting process. The Board believes that it is critical that the municipal market engender the highest degree of public confidence so that investors will continue to provide much needed capital to state and local governments.
[1] Blount v. SEC, 61 F. 3d 938 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 1351 (1996).
[2] If a dealer or MFP is considering contributing funds to a non-dealer associated PAC or political party, Rule G-37 requires that the dealer or MFP “should inquire of the non-dealer associated PAC or political party how any funds received from the dealer or MFP would be used.” See Questions and Answers Notice: Rule G-37, No. 2 (August 6, 1996), reprinted in MSRB Rule Book.
[3] See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 35446 (SEC Order Approving Proposed Rule Change by the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board Relating to Rule G-37 on Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business, and Rule G-8, on Recordkeeping) (March 6, 1995).
[4] Rule G-38 (a)(i) defines the term “consultant” as any person used by a dealer to obtain or retain municipal securities business through direct or indirect communication by such person with an issuer on the dealer’s behalf where the communication is undertaken by such person in exchange for, or with the understanding of receiving, payment from the dealer or any other person.
[5] See SEC Release No. 33-7049; 34-33741 (Statement of the Commission Regarding Disclosure Obligations of Municipal Issuers and Others) (March 17, 1994).
No comments available.
Reporting and Comparison of Certain Transactions Effected by Investment Advisors: Rules G-12(f) and G-14
In recent months, the MSRB has received a number of questions relating to certain kinds of transactions in which independent investment advisors instruct selling dealers to make deliveries to other dealers. This notice addresses questions that have been raised relating to Rule G-12(f)(i), on automated comparison, and Rule G-14, on transaction reporting. It describes existing requirements that follow from the language of the rules and does not set forth any new policies or procedures.
An independent investment advisor purchasing securities from one dealer sometimes instructs that dealer to make delivery of the securities to other dealers where the investment advisor's clients have accounts. The identities of individual account holders typically are not given.[1] The dealers receiving the deliveries in these cases generally are providing "wrap fee" or similar types of accounts that allow investors to use independent investment advisors to manage their municipal securities portfolios. In these kinds of arrangements, the investment advisor chosen by the account holder may be picked from a list of advisors approved by the dealer; however, dealers offering these accounts have indicated that the investment advisor acts independently in effecting transactions for the client's municipal securities portfolio.
The following example illustrates the situation. An Investment Advisor purchases a $1 million block of municipal bonds from the Selling Dealer and instructs the Selling Dealer to deliver $300,000 of the bonds to Dealer X and $700,000 to Dealer Y. The Investment Advisor does not give the Selling Dealer the individual client accounts at Dealer X and Dealer Y to which the bonds will be allocated and there is no contact between the Selling Dealer and Dealers X and Y at the time of trade. The Investment Advisor, however, later informs Dealer X and Dealer Y to expect the delivery from the Selling Dealer, and gives the identity and quantity of securities that will be delivered, the final monies, and the individual account allocations. For example, the Investment Advisor may instruct Dealer X to allocate its $300,000 delivery by placing $100,000 in John Doe's account and $200,000 in Mary Smith's account.
With respect to transaction reporting requirements in this situation, the Selling Dealer should report a $1 million sale to a customer. No other dealer should report a transaction. The comparison system should not be used for the inter-dealer transfers between the Selling Dealer and Dealers X and Y because this would cause them to be reported as inter-dealer trades.
Frequently Asked Questions
One frequently asked question in the context of the above example is whether the transfers of the $300,000 and $700,000 blocks by the Selling Dealer to Dealer X and Dealer Y should be reported as inter-dealer transactions. Another question is whether these transfers may be accomplished by submitting them to the automated comparison system for inter-dealer transactions. Based on the information that has been provided to the MSRB, these transfers do not appear to represent inter-dealer trades and thus should not be reported under Rule G-14 or compared under Rule G-12(f)(i) using the current central comparison system.
One reason for the conclusion that no inter-dealer trade exists is that municipal securities professionals for firms in the roles of Dealer X and Y have stated that the Investment Advisor is acting independently and is not acting as their agent when effecting the trade with the Selling Dealer. In support of this assertion, they note that they often are not informed of the transaction or the deliveries that they should expect until well after the trade has been effected by the Investment Advisor. They also note that the actions of the Investment Advisor are not subject to their control or supervision. Thus, the $300,000 and $700,000 inter-dealer transfers in the above example appear to be simply deliveries made in accordance with a contract made by, and the instructions given by, the Investment Advisor. The inter-dealer transfers thus do not constitute inter-dealer transactions.
Because Rule G-14 transaction reporting of inter-dealer trades is accomplished through the central comparison system, any dealer submitting the $300,000 and $700,000 inter-dealer transfers to the comparison system is in effect reporting inter-dealer transactions that did not occur. In addition, this practice tends to drive down comparison rates and the overall performance of dealers in the automated comparison system. As noted above, the trading desks of Dealer X and Dealer Y generally do not know about the Investment Advisor's transaction at the time of trade. They consequently cannot submit comparison information to the system unless the Investment Advisor provides them with the trade details in a timely, accurate and complete manner. Since the Investment Advisor is acting independently and is not supervised by municipal securities professionals at Dealer X and Dealer Y, there is no means for the municipal securities professionals at Dealer X and Dealer Y to ensure that this happens.
Questions also have been received on whether the individual allocations to investor accounts (e.g., the $100,000 and $200,000 allocations to the accounts of John Doe and Mary Smith in the example above) should be reported under Rule G-14 as customer transactions. Even though the dealer housing these accounts obviously has important obligations to the investor with respect to receiving deliveries, paying the Selling Dealer for the securities, and processing the allocations under the instructions of the Investment Advisor, it does not appear that the dealer entered into a purchase or sale contract with the investor and thus nothing is reportable under Rule G-14. This conclusion again is based upon statements by dealers providing the "wrap fee" and similar accounts, who indicate that the investment advisor acts independently and not as the dealer's agent when it effects the original block transaction and when it makes allocation decisions.
For purposes of price transparency, the only transaction to be reported in the above example is a single $1 million sale to a customer. This is appropriate because the only market price to be reported is the one set between the Selling Dealer and the Investment Advisor for the $1 million block of securities. It is appropriate that the $300,000 and $700,000 inter-dealer transfers, and the $100,000 or $200,000 investor allocations are not disseminated as transactions since they would have to be reported using the price for the $1 million block. This could be misleading in that market for $1 million round lots are often different than market prices for smaller transaction sizes.
[1] It should be noted that in this situation, the investment advisor itself is the customer and must be treated as such for recordkeeping and other regulatory purposes. For discussion of a similar situation, see "Interpretive Notice on Recordkeeping" dated July 29, 1977.
