Select regulatory documents by category:
Back to top
Notice 2022-07 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers

Rule Number:

Rule G-14

All Comments to Notice 2022-07

  1. American Securities Association: Letter from Kelli McMorrow, Head of Government Affairs, dated September 30, 2022
  2. Amuni Financial, Inc.: Letter from Mike Petagna, President, dated August 23, 2022
  3. Bailey, Bill: Email dated August 4. 2022
  4. Belle Haven Investments, L.P.: Letter from Matt Dalton, Chief Executive Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  5. Bernardi Securities, Inc.: Letter from Ronald P. Bernardi, President and CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  6. BetaNXT: Letter from Will Leahey, Head of Regulatory Compliance, dated October 3, 2022
  7. Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Decker, Senior Vice President for Public Policy, dated October 3, 2022
  8. Bryant Bank: Letter from David Long, Executive Vice President, Correspondent Banking/Capital Markets, and Vincent Webb, Managing Director, Bryant Bank Capital Markets, dated September 28, 2022
  9. Cambridge Investment Research, Inc.: Letter from Seth A. Miller, General Counsel, President, Advocacy and Administration, dated October 3, 2022
  10. Cantella & Co., Inc.: Email from Jay Lanstein, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Technology Officer, dated September 16, 2022
  11. Cantone Research, Inc.: Email from Maryann Cantone dated August 2, 2022
  12. Colwell, J.D.: Letter dated September 9, 2022
  13. DeRobbio, Raymond: Email dated August 3, 2022
  14. Dimensional Fund Advisors LP: Letter from Gerard O’Reilly, Co-CEO and Chief Investment Officer, and David A. Plecha, Global Head of Fixed Income, dated September 26, 2022
  15. Estrada Hinojosa & Co., Inc.: Letter from Robert A. Estrada, Chairman (Emeritus), dated October 3, 2022
  16. Falcon Square Capital, LLC: Letter from Melissa P. Hoots, CEO/CCO, dated October 3, 2022
  17. Financial Information Forum: Letter from Howard Meyerson, Managing Director, dated October 3, 2022; Supplemental Letter from Howard Meyerson, Managing Director, dated April 27, 2023
  18. Ford & Associates, Inc.: Letter from Jonathan W. Ford, Senior Vice President, dated September 9, 2022
  19. Hartfield, Titus & Donnelly, LLC: Letter from Edward J. Smith, General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, dated September 14, 2022
  20. Herbert J. Sims & Co., Inc.: Letter from Melissa Messina, Executive Vice President, Associate General Counsel, R. Jeffrey Sands, Managing Principal, General Counsel, and William Sims, Managing Principal, dated October 3, 2022
  21. Higgins Capital Management, Inc.: Email from Deborah Higgins dated September 19, 2022
  22. Hilltop Securities: Letter from Lana Calton, Executive Managing Director, Head of Clearing, dated October 3, 2022
  23. Honey Badger Investment Securities, LLC: Letter from Joe Lee, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  24. ICE Bonds Securities Corporation: Letter from Robert Laorno, General Counsel, dated September 30, 2022
  25. InspereX LLC: Letter from Robert D. Bullington, Vice President, Compliance Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  26. Institutional Securities Corporation: Letter from Scott Hayes, President and CEO, and Chris Neidlinger, CCO, dated September 30, 2022
  27. Investment Company Institute: Letter from Sarah A. Bessin, Associate General Counsel, dated October 3, 2022
  28. Investment Placement Group: Email from Darius Lashkari dated August 2, 2022
  29. Isaak Bond Investments: Letter from John Isaak, Sr. Vice President, dated August 16, 2022
  30. Isaak Bond Investments, Inc.: Letter from Donald J. Lemek, VP-Operations and CFO
  31. Kiley Partners, Inc.: Email from Mike Kiley, Owner, dated September 27, 2022
  32. Madison Paige Securities: Letter from Gary Herschitz, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  33. Mayes, Christopher: Email dated September 27, 2022
  34. Miner, Kathy: Letter dated October 2, 2022
  35. Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board: Memorandum dated September 12, 2022
  36. Northland Securities Inc.: Letter from Randy Nitzsche, President and CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  37. Oberweis Securities, Inc.: Letter from James W. Oberweis, President, dated September 28, 2022
  38. Regional Brokers, Inc.: Letter from H. Deane Armstrong, CCO, and Joseph A. Hemphill III, CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  39. Robert Blum Municipals, Inc.: Letter from Robert Blum, President, dated September 16, 2022
  40. Roosevelt & Cross, Inc.: Letter from F. Gregory Finn, Chief Executive Officer, dated October 3, 2022
  41. RW Smith & Associates, LLC: Letter from Christopher Ferreri, President, dated September 13, 2022
  42. SAMCO Capital Markets, Inc.: Letter from Lee Maverick, Chief Compliance Officer, dated September 30, 2022
  43. Sanderlin Securities LLC: Letter from Matthew Kamler, President, dated September 27, 2022
  44. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the SIFMA Asset Management Group: Letter from Kenneth E. Bentsen, Jr., President and CEO, dated October 3, 2022
  45. Sentinel Brokers Company, Inc.: Letter from Joseph Lawless, CEO, dated September 30, 2022
  46. Sheedy, Edward: Email dated August 2, 2022
  47. Stern Brothers and Co.: Letter dated October 3, 2022
  48. TRADEliance, LLC: Letter from Jesy LeBlanc and Kat Miller dated September 28, 2022
  49. Tuma, William: Email dated August 8, 2022
  50. Wells Fargo & Company: Letter from Nyron Latif, Head of Operations, Wells Fargo Wealth and Investment Management, and Todd Primavera, Head of Operations, Wells Fargo Corporate and Investment Bank, dated October 3, 2022
  51. Wiley Bros.-Aintree Capital, LLC: Letter from Keener Billups, Managing Director, Municipal Bond Department, dated September 20, 2022
  52. Wintrust Investments, LLC: Email from Thomas Kiernan dated August 2, 2022
  53. Zia Corporation: Email from Glenn Burnett dated September 6, 2022
Notice 2021-02 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2016-19 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2016-09 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2015-07 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-14

Notice 2014-14 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers

Rule Number:

Rule G-14


1.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated September 26, 2014

2   Financial Information Forum: Letter from Darren Wasney, Program Manager, dated September 19, 2014

3.  Herbert Murez: E-mail dated August 13, 2014

4.  Income Securities Advisor Inc.: E-mail from Richard Lehmann dated August 26, 2014

5.  Loren Trigo: E-mail dated August 13, 2014

6.  RW Smith & Associates, LLC: E-mail from Paige W. Pierce, President and Chief Executive Officer, dated September 26, 2014 

7.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated September 25, 2014

 

Notice 2014-05 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2013-14 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-14


1.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated November 1, 2013

2.  Corporate Treasury Investment Consulting LLC: Letter from Mark O. Conner, Principal, dated August 16, 2013

3.  Financial Information Forum: Letter from Manisha Kimmel, Executive Director, dated November 1, 2013

4.  Interactive Data Corporation: Letter from Mark Hepsworth, President, Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, dated November 1, 2013

5.  Leonard, Jack: Letter dated August 1, 2013

6.  Long, Cate: E-mail dated November 1, 2013

7.  Sayer, Steven: E-mail dated November 3, 2013

8.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated November 1, 2013

9.  Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC: Letter from Robert J.McCarthy, Director of Regulatory Policy, dated November 1, 2013

Notice 2013-03 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2012-64 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2012-60 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2012-52 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2012-51 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2012-42 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Build America Bonds and Other Tax Credit Bonds

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added a provision to the Internal Revenue Code that authorizes state and local governments to issue two types of “Build America Bonds” as taxable governmental bonds with Federal subsidies for a portion of their borrowing costs.

The first type of Build America Bond provides a Federal subsidy through Federal tax credits to investors in the bonds.  The tax credits may also be “stripped” and sold to other investors, pursuant to regulations to be issued by the Treasury Department.  In its Notice 2009-26, the Treasury Department refers to this type of Build America Bond as “Build America Bonds (Tax Credit).”

The second type of Build America Bond provides a Federal subsidy through a refundable tax credit paid to state or local governmental issuers by the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service.  The Treasury Department refers to this type of Build America Bond as “Build America Bonds (Direct Payment).”  This Notice refers to both Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) and Build America Bonds (Direct Payment) as “Build America Bonds.”

Some municipal market participants have requested guidance on whether Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board rules are applicable to Build America Bonds.  Build America Bonds are municipal securities, because they are issued by States and their political subdivisions and instrumentalities.  Accordingly, all of the MSRB’s rules apply to transactions effected by brokers, dealers, and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) in Build America Bonds, including rules regarding uniform and fair practice, political contributions, automated clearance and settlement, the payment of MSRB underwriting and transaction assessment fees, and the professional qualifications of registered representatives and principals.

For example, dealers in the primary market should note that current Rule G-36 requires underwriters to submit official statements to the MSRB, accompanied by completed Form G-36 (OS), for most primary offerings of municipal securities.  Dealers also have official statement delivery responsibilities to customers under Rule G-32.  Once final, recently proposed revisions to Rule G-32 will require underwriters to satisfy their official statement submission obligations electronically through use of the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access system (“EMMA”) and will allow dealers to satisfy their official statement delivery obligations by means of appropriate notice to customers.

The MSRB understands that many Build America Bonds may be sold by dealers’ taxable desks and reminds dealers that Rule G-27 requires that municipal securities principals must supervise all municipal securities activities, including such sales.

Dealers in the secondary market should note that Rule G-14 requires that all transactions in municipal securities must be reported to the MSRB within certain prescribed time periods. 

The following additional types of tax credit bonds are also municipal securities subject to MSRB rules: Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds, Qualified School Construction Bonds, Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, New Clean Renewable Energy Bonds, Midwestern Tax Credit Bonds, Energy Conservation Bonds, and Qualified Zone Academy Bonds.

This Notice does not address the securities law characterization of the tax credit component of Build America Bonds (Tax Credit) or other tax credit bonds, whether the credits are used by investors in the bonds or stripped and sold to other investors.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Transaction Reporting of Dealer Buybacks of Auction Rate Securities: RULE G-14
Rule Number:

Rule G-14

As a result of the unprecedented number of “failed  auctions” [1] in municipal Auction Rate Securities (“ARS”) that have occurred this year, many dealers have announced plans to offer to purchase customer positions in municipal ARS at a stated price, typically par (“ARS Buybacks”). These ARS Buyback programs predominantly have occurred pursuant to settlement agreements with state attorneys general. The MSRB has received questions from dealers whether ARS Buybacks must be reported to the MSRB Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (RTRS) and, if so, whether the M9c0 “away from market - other reason” special condition indicator must be included on such trade reports.

MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, requires all purchase-sale transactions in municipal securities to be reported to RTRS. Transactions in ARS must be reported to RTRS and trade reports of ARS Buybacks must be reported to RTRS without the M9c0 special condition indicator. The primary reason a trade report would be required to include the M9c0 special condition indicator is that the trade report contains information that could be misleading to users of price transparency reports.[2] The MSRB does not believe that trade reports of ARS Buybacks would provide misleading information relating to the market value of ARS because the price at which ARS Buybacks are executed has been publicly announced. Therefore, trade reports of ARS Buybacks as well as of other purchases of ARS from holders at current market prices must be reported without the M9c0 special condition indicator.[3]


[1] A “failed auction” is not an event of default by the issuer, it only relates to the auction process not being able to determine a clearing rate and not permitting investors attempting to sell their securities from being able to do so.

[2] RTRS serves the dual purposes of price transparency and market surveillance. Transactions reported with the M9c0 special condition indicator are entered into the surveillance database but suppressed from price dissemination. The MSRB has identified three specific situations in which the M9c0 special condition indicator is required to be included on trade reports. See Notice of Interpretation of Rule G-14: “Reporting of Transactions in Certain Special Trading Situations: Rule G-14,” dated January 2, 2008.

[3] Users of the MSRB’s price transparency reports produced from RTRS should be aware that ARS Buybacks may result in a higher than normal volume of trade reports in ARS and should not use this volume as an indication that the market for ARS has fully recovered from the unprecedented number of failed auctions that have occurred in 2008. Further, the prices at which ARS Buybacks are executed may not reflect the actual market value for the security.

Notice 2008-36 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2008-27 - Informational Notice
Publication date:
Notice 2008-19 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Rule Number:

Rule G-14


Comments on MSRB Notice 2008-19 (April 11, 2008)

  1. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated June 5, 2008
  2. UMB Bank, N.A.: E-mail from Kristin M. Koziol, Vice President & Manager of Municipal Underwriting, dated April 25, 2008
Notice 2008-15 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Rule Number:

Rule G-14


Comments on MSRB Notice 2008-15 (March 17, 2008)

  1. Digital Assurance Certification, LLC: Letter from Paula Stuart, Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2008
  2. McPherson, Jack B: Letter dated March 27, 2008
  3. Mikag: E-mail dated April 23, 2008
  4. Regional Bond Dealers Association: Letter from Michael Decker, Co-Chief Executive Officer, and Mike Nicholas, Co-Chief Executive Officer, dated April 21, 2008
  5. Saber Partners, LLC: Letter from Joseph S. Fichera, Senior Managing Director and CEO, dated July 9, 2008
  6. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association:Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated April 21, 2008
  7. Yankauer, Jeff: E-mail dated April 17, 2008
Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Notices
Publication date:
Reporting of Transactions in Certain Special Trading Situations: Rule G-14
Rule Number:

Rule G-14

The MSRB Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (RTRS) serves the dual purposes of price transparency and market surveillance.  Because a comprehensive database of transactions is needed for the surveillance function of RTRS, MSRB Rule G-14, on transaction reporting, with limited exceptions, requires dealers to report all of their purchase-sale transactions to RTRS within fifteen minutes.  All reported transactions are entered into the RTRS surveillance database used by market regulators and enforcement agencies. However, the special nature of some transactions effects their value for price transparency and the ability of dealers to meet the fifteen minute reporting deadline. To address these issues, RTRS was designed so that a dealer can code a specific transaction report with a “special condition indicator” to designate the transaction as being subject to a special condition.[1]

TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED WITH SPECIAL PRICING CONDITIONS

Three trading scenarios recently have generated questions from dealers and users of the MSRB price transparency products.  Each of the three trading scenarios described below represents situations where the transaction executed is not a typical arms-length transaction negotiated in the secondary market and thus may be a misleading indicator of the market value of a security.  To clarify transaction reporting requirements and to prevent publication of a potentially misleading price, dealers are required to report these transactions with the M9c0 special condition indicator.[2] Transactions reported with this special condition indicator are entered into the surveillance database but suppressed from price dissemination to ensure that transparency products do not include prices that might be confusing or misleading.

Customer Repurchase Agreement Transactions

Some dealers have programs allowing customers to finance municipal securities positions with repurchase agreements (“repos”). Typically, a bona fide repo consists of two transactions whereby a dealer will sell securities to a customer and agree to repurchase the securities on a future date at a pre-determined price that will produce an agreed-upon rate of return. Both the sale and purchase transactions resulting from a customer repo do not represent typical arms-length transactions negotiated in the secondary market and are therefore required to be reported with the M9c0 special condition indicator.

UIT-Related Transactions

Dealers sponsoring Unit Investment Trusts (“UIT”) or similar programs sometimes purchase securities through several transactions and deposit such securities into an “accumulation” account. After the accumulation account contains the necessary securities for the UIT, the dealer transfers the securities from the accumulation account into the UIT. Purchases of securities for an accumulation account are presumably done at market value and are required to be reported normally. The transfer of securities out of the accumulation account and into the UIT, however, does not represent a typical arms-length transaction negotiated in the secondary market. Dealers are required to report the subsequent transfer of securities from the accumulation account to the UIT with the M9c0 special condition indicator.

TOB Program-Related Transactions

Dealers sponsoring tender option bond programs (“TOB Programs”) for customers sometimes transfer securities previously sold to a customer into a derivative trust from which derivative products are created. If the customer sells the securities held in the derivative trust, the trust is liquidated and the securities are reconstituted from the derivative products and transferred back to the customer. The transfer of securities into the derivative trust and the transfer of securities back to the customer upon liquidation of the trust do not represent typical arms-length transactions negotiated in the secondary market. Such transactions are required to be reported using the M9c0 special condition indicator.[3]

INTER-DEALER TRANSACTIONS REPORTED “LATE”

Inter-dealer transaction reporting is accomplished by both the purchasing and selling dealers submitting the trade to the Depository Trust and Clearing Corporation’s (DTCC) automated comparison system (RTTM) following DTCC’s procedures. RTTM forwards information about the transaction to RTRS.  The inter-dealer trade processing situations described below are the subject of dealer questions and currently result in dealers being charged with “late” reporting or reporting of a trade date and time that differs from the date and time of trade execution.  To allow dealers to report these types of transactions without receiving a late error and to allow enforcement agencies to identify these trades as reported under special circumstances, the MSRB has added two new special condition indicators.[4] New special condition indicator Mc40 is used to identify certain inter-dealer transactions that are ineligible for comparison on trade date, and new special condition indicator Mc50 is used to identify resubmissions of certain uncompared inter-dealer transactions that have been cancelled by RTTM. Described below are the procedures for reporting transactions arising in three inter-dealer transaction reporting scenarios using the new special condition indicators.

Inter-Dealer Ineligible on Trade Date

Certain inter-dealer transactions are not able to be submitted to RTTM on trade date or with the accurate trade date either because all information necessary for comparison is not available or because the trade date is not a “valid” trade date in RTTM. The two inter-dealer trading scenarios described below are required to be reported using the new Mc40 special condition indicator.

VRDO Ineligible on Trade Date

On occasion, inter-dealer secondary market transactions are effected in variable rate demand obligations (VRDOs) in which the interest rate reset date occurs between trade date and the time of settlement. Since dealers in this scenario cannot calculate accrued interest or final money on trade date, they cannot process the trade through RTTM until the interest rate reset has occurred. To report such transactions, both dealers that are party to the transaction are required to report the transaction by the end of the day that the interest rate reset occurs, including the trade date and time that the original trade was executed. Both dealers are required to include the new Mc40 special condition indicator that causes RTRS not to score either dealer late. Transactions reported using this procedure are disseminated without a special condition indicator and the trade reports reflect the original trade date and time.

Invalid RTTM Trade Dates

Dealers sometimes execute inter-dealer transactions on weekends and on certain holidays that are not valid RTTM trade dates. Such trades cannot be reported to RTRS using the actual trade date if they occur on a weekend or holiday. To accomplish automated comparison and transaction reporting of such transactions, dealers are required to submit these inter-dealer transactions to RTTM no later than fifteen minutes after the start of the next RTRS Business Day and to include a trade date and time that represents the next earliest “valid” values that can be submitted.[5] Dealers also are required to include the new Mc40 special condition indicator that allows RTRS to identify these transactions so that enforcement agencies can be alerted to the fact that the trade reports were made under special circumstances using a special trade date and time. RTRS disseminates these trade reports without a special condition indicator and the trade report includes the trade date and time reflecting the next earliest “valid” values that can be submitted.[6]

Resubmission of an RTTM Cancel

A dealer may submit an inter-dealer trade to RTTM and find that the contra-party fails to report its side of the trade.  Such “uncompared” trades are not disseminated by RTRS on price transparency products.  After two days, RTTM removes the uncompared trade report from its system and the dealer originally submitting the trade must resubmit the transaction in a second attempt to obtain a comparison with its contra-party, which currently results in RTRS scoring the resubmitted trade report “late.”

The dealer that originally submitted information to RTTM is required to resubmit identical information about the transaction in the second attempt to compare and report the trade by the end of the day after RTTM cancels the trade. The resubmitting dealer also is required to include the new Mc50 special condition indicator that causes RTRS to not score the resubmitting dealer late. The indicator may only be used by a dealer resubmitting the exact same trade information for the same trade.[7] For example, the contra-party that failed to submit its side to the trade accurately, thus preventing comparison of the transaction, is not allowed to use the indicator. RTRS disseminates trade reports made under this procedure without a special condition indicator once RTTM compares the trade and the trade report reflects the original trade date and time.


[1] See Specifications for Real-Time Reporting of Municipal Securities Transactions Section 4.3.2.

[2] In addition to the special trading situations identified in this notice, the M9c0 special condition indicator, “away from market – other reason,” is required to be included on a trade report if the transaction price differs substantially from the market price for multiple reasons or for a reason not covered by another special condition indicator.

[3] In some cases, the transfer of securities into the derivative trust and the transfer of securities back to the customer upon liquidation of the trust do not represent purchase-sale transactions due to the terms of the trust agreement.  MSRB rules on transaction reporting do not require a dealer to report a transfer of securities to RTRS that is not a purchase-sale transaction in municipal securities.

[4] See MSRB Notice 2007-25 (August 13, 2007).

[5] The MSRB previously provided an example of a trade date and time that would be included on a trade report using this procedure.  See “Reporting of Inter-Dealer Transactions That Occur Outside of RTRS Business Day Hours or on Invalid RTTM Trade Dates,” MSRB Notice 2007-12 (March 23, 2007).

[6] Using this procedure will result in transactions reported with a trade date and time that differs from what is recorded in a dealer’s books and records.  Dealers are reminded that books and records are required to reflect the date and time of trade execution.

[7] The resubmitting dealer would not be required to resubmit the same reference number or preparation time on the resubmitted transaction; however, other information about the transaction, such as price, quantity, trade date and time, would be required to be identical to information included in the original trade submission.

Notice 2008-01 - Informational Notice
Publication date: