(First published July 12, 2017)

Effective May 14, 2018, amendments to MSRB Rule G-15 require dealers to disclose additional information on retail customer confirmations for a specified class of principal transactions, including the dealer’s mark-up or mark-down as determined from the prevailing market price (PMP) of the security. Dealers generally also are required to disclose on retail customer confirmations the time of execution and a security-specific URL to the MSRB’s Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA®) website.[1] Related amendments to Rule G-30, on prices and commissions, provide guidance on determining the PMP for the purpose of calculating a dealer’s mark-up or mark-down and for other Rule G-30 determinations.

Also, effective May 14, 2018, amendments to Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) Rule 2232 create similar confirmation disclosure requirements for other areas of the fixed income markets. Among other things, the FINRA amendments require dealers to determine their disclosed mark-ups and mark-downs from the PMP of the security that is traded, in accordance with existing guidance under FINRA Rule 2121.

Below are answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the confirmation disclosure requirements under Rule G-15 and related PMP guidance under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06 (also referred to as the “waterfall” guidance or analysis). While these FAQs address MSRB rules only, FINRA has also issued guidance for the FINRA rules applicable to agency and corporate bonds. The MSRB and FINRA worked together to produce this guidance. While each has published its own version to refer to MSRB and FINRA rules and materials, respectively, the versions are materially the same and reflect the organizations’ coordinated approach to enhanced confirmation disclosure for debt securities. To the extent the MSRB and FINRA offer different guidance based on differences between the markets for corporate, agency and municipal securities, those differences are discussed in the context of the relevant question and answer.

During the implementation period, the MSRB will continue to work with dealers on questions related to the confirmation disclosure requirements and PMP guidance. Dealers are encouraged to contact the MSRB to suggest additional topics or questions for inclusion in the FAQs. Accordingly, the MSRB may add to, update or revise this guidance. The most recent date for the content of an answer will be clearly marked.

For ease of reference, unless otherwise noted, the term “mark-up” refers both to mark-ups applied to sales to customers and mark-downs applied to purchases from customers, and the term “contemporaneous cost” refers both to contemporaneous cost in the context of sales to customers and contemporaneous proceeds in the context of purchases from customers.

Section 1:  When Mark-Up Disclosure Is Required

1.1 When does Rule G-15 require mark-up disclosure?

A dealer is required to disclose on a customer confirmation the mark-up on a transaction in municipal securities with a non-institutional customer if the dealer also executes one or more offsetting principal transaction(s) on the same trading day as the customer transaction in an aggregate trading size that meets or exceeds the size of the customer trade. A non-institutional customer is a customer with an account that is not an institutional account, as defined in MSRB Rule G-8(a)(xi).

As noted during the MSRB’s confirmation disclosure rulemaking process, any intentional delay of a customer execution to avoid triggering the mark-up disclosure requirements may violate Rule G-18, on best execution, and Rule G-17, on conduct of municipal securities and municipal advisory activities.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 7 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 3-4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.2  Is mark-up disclosure required only where the sizes of same-day customer and principal trades offset each other?

Yes. Mark-up disclosure is required only where a customer trade offsets a same-day principal trade in whole or in part. For example, if a dealer purchased 100 bonds at 9:30 a.m., and then, as principal, satisfied three non-institutional customer buy orders for 50 bonds each in the same security on the same trading day without making any other purchases of the bonds that day, mark-up disclosure would be required only on two of the three customer purchases, since one of the trades would need to be satisfied out of the dealer’s prior inventory rather than offset by the dealer’s same-day principal transaction.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 4; 7-8 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 3-4 (November 14, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.2.1  Are position moves between separate desks within a firm considered “transactions” for purposes of determining whether a dealer has offsetting transactions that trigger a mark-up disclosure requirement?

No. Mark-up disclosure is triggered under Rule G-15 when a customer trade is offset by one or more “transactions.”  For purposes of the rule, the MSRB considers a “transaction” to entail a change of beneficial ownership between parties. Accordingly, if a retail desk within a dealer acquires bonds through a position move from another desk within the same firm and then sells those bonds to a non-institutional customer, the dealer is required to provide the customer with mark-up disclosure only if the dealer bought the bonds in one or more offsetting transactions on the same trading day as the sale to the customer (subject to the exceptions discussed in Question 1.7).

(March 19, 2018)

1.3  When are trades executed by a dealer’s affiliate relevant for determining whether the mark-up disclosure requirements are triggered?

If a dealer’s offsetting principal trade is executed with a dealer affiliate and did not occur at arm’s length, the dealer is required to “look through” to the time and terms of the affiliate’s trade with a third party to determine whether mark-up disclosure is triggered under Rule G-15. On the other hand, if the dealer’s transaction with its affiliate is an arms-length transaction, the dealer would treat that transaction as any other offsetting transaction (i.e., the dealer would not “look through” to the time and terms of the arms-length transaction).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 9­‑10; 23; 26 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.4  What is considered an “arms-length transaction” when considering whether a dealer must “look through” to the time and terms of an affiliate’s trade?

The term “arms-length transaction” is defined in Rule G-15(a)(vi)(I) to mean a transaction that was conducted through a competitive process in which non-affiliate firms could also participate, and where the affiliate relationship did not influence the price paid or proceeds received by the dealer. The MSRB has noted that as a general matter, it expects the competitive process used in an arms-length transaction to be one in which non-affiliates have frequently participated. In other words, the MSRB would not view a process, like a request for pricing protocol or posting of bids and offers, as competitive if non-affiliates responded to requests or otherwise participated in only isolated or limited circumstances.

Factors that may be relevant to a dealer’s determination that a transaction with an affiliate was conducted at arm’s length include, but are not limited to: counterparty anonymity during the competitive process to the time of execution; the presence of other competitive bids or offers, in addition to the affiliate's, in the competitive process; contemporaneous market activity in the same or a similar security (or securities) which is used to evaluate the relative competitiveness of bids or offers received during a competitive process; and a lack of preferential arrangements between the affiliates concerning, or based on, the handling of orders between them. The MSRB notes that no one of these factors is necessarily determinative on its own.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 9 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

1.5  If a dealer has an exclusive agreement with a non-affiliated dealer under which it always purchases its securities from, or always sells its securities to, that non-affiliate, would the “look through” requirements apply when the dealer transacts with the non-affiliate?

No. The “look through” applies only to certain transactions between affiliated dealers. Under Rule G-15, a “look through” is required when the dealer’s offsetting transaction is with an affiliate and is not an “arms-length transaction.” A transaction with a non-affiliate would not meet these conditions, so a “look through” would not be required. The MSRB notes that dealers should continue to evaluate the terms and circumstances of any such arrangements in light of other MSRB rules and guidance, including best execution. In evaluating these terms and circumstances, dealers should consider whether they diminish the reliability and utility of mark-up disclosure to investors.

(July 12, 2017)

1.6  Does the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15 apply to transactions that involve a dealer and a registered investment adviser?

No. To trigger the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15, a dealer must execute a trade with a non-institutional customer. Under the rule, registered investment advisers are institutional customers; accordingly, mark-up disclosure is not required when dealers transact with registered investment advisers. This is the case even where the registered investment adviser with whom the dealer transacted later allocates all or a portion of the securities to a retail account or where the transaction is executed directly for a retail account if the investment adviser has discretion over the transaction. The MSRB notes that this answer is specific to the mark-up disclosure requirement in Rule G-15; it is not intended to alter any other obligations.

(July 12, 2017)

1.7  Are there any exceptions to the mark-up disclosure trigger requirements?

Yes. There are three exceptions. First, disclosure is not required for transactions in municipal fund securities. Second, mark-up disclosure is not necessarily triggered by principal trades that a dealer executes on a trading desk that is functionally separate from a trading desk that executes customer trades, provided the dealer maintains policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that the functionally separate trading desk had no knowledge of the customer trades. For example, the exception allows an institutional desk within a dealer to service an institutional customer without necessarily triggering the disclosure requirement for an unrelated trade performed by a separate retail desk within the dealer. Third, disclosure is not required for transactions that are list offering price transactions, as defined in paragraph (d)(vii)(A) of Rule G-14 RTRS Procedures.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 10 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.8  May dealers voluntarily provide mark-up disclosure on additional transactions that do not trigger mandatory disclosure?

Yes. In disclosing this information on a voluntary basis, dealers should be mindful of any applicable MSRB rules. For example, while mark-up disclosure is voluntary for trades that are not triggered by the relevant provisions of Rule G-15, the process for determining the PMP according to Rule G-30 applies in all cases. In addition, to avoid customer confusion, voluntary disclosure should also follow the same format and labeling requirements applicable to mandatory disclosure.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13 n. 27 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

1.9  In arrangements involving clearing dealers and introducing or correspondent dealers, who is responsible for mark-up disclosure?

The introducing or correspondent dealer bears the ultimate responsibility for compliance with the disclosure requirements under Rule G-15. Although an introducing or correspondent dealer may use the assistance of a clearing dealer, as it may use other third-party service providers subject to due diligence and oversight, the introducing or correspondent dealer remains ultimately responsible for compliance.

(July 12, 2017)

Section 2:  Content and Format of Mark-Up Disclosure

2.1  What information must be included when dealers provide mark-up disclosure on a confirmation?

When mark-up disclosure is provided on a customer confirmation, Rule G-15 requires firms to express the disclosed mark-up as both a total dollar amount and a percentage amount of PMP. The mark-up should be calculated and disclosed as the total amount per transaction; disclosure of the per bond dollar amount of mark-up (e.g., $9.45 per bond) would not satisfy the requirement to disclose the total dollar amount of the transaction mark-up.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 12 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

2.2  Where is mark-up disclosure required to be located on a confirmation?

For printed confirmations, Rule G-15(a)(i)(E) requires the mark-up disclosure to be located on the front of the customer confirmation. For electronic confirmations, the disclosure should appear in a naturally visible place. Because the rule requires mark-up disclosure to be on the confirmation itself, the inclusion of a link on the customer confirmation that a customer could click to obtain his or her mark-up disclosure would not satisfy the requirements of Rule G-15.

(July 12, 2017)

2.3  May dealers use explanatory language to provide context for mark-up disclosure?

Yes. Dealers may include accompanying language to explain mark-up related concepts, or a dealer’s particular methodology for calculating mark-ups according to MSRB guidance (or to note the availability of information about the methodology upon request), provided such statements are accurate and not misleading. However, dealers may not label mark-ups as “estimated” or “approximate” figures, or use other such labels. These types of qualifiers risk diminishing the utility of the disclosure and of the dealer’s own determination of the security’s PMP and mark-up charged, and otherwise risk diminishing the value to retail investors of the disclosure.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 11-12 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

2.4  If a dealer encounters a situation where a mark-up is negative (i.e., the dealer sold to the customer at a price lower than the PMP), may it choose to disclose a mark-up of zero instead?

The MSRB believes that negative mark-ups will be very infrequent; however, if such a case arises, a dealer may not disclose a mark-up of zero where the mark-up is not, in fact, zero. Dealers should disclose the mark-up that they calculate based on their determination of PMP consistent with Rule G-30. As an alternative to disclosing a negative mark-up, dealers are permitted to disclose “N/A” in the mark-up/mark-down field if the confirmation also includes a brief explanation of the “N/A” disclosure and the reason it has been provided. Dealers also have the flexibility to provide an explanation for trades with disclosed negative or zero mark-ups as well, consistent with Question 2.3 above.

(July 12, 2017)

2.5  How many decimal places should dealers use when disclosing the mark-up as a percentage amount?

Dealers should disclose the percentage amount rounded to at least two decimal places (e.g., hundredths of a percent). For example, if a dealer charged a $120 mark-up on a 10-bond transaction where the PMP was 99, the mark-up percentage should be disclosed to at least the hundredth of a percentage point, as 1.21% (as opposed to 1.2% or 1%). However, if a dealer charged a $100 mark-up on a 10-bond transaction where the PMP was 100, the mark-up percentage could be disclosed as 1.00% or 1%.

(March 19, 2018)

Section 3:  Determining Prevailing Market Price

3.1  How should dealers determine PMP to calculate mark-ups?

Dealers must calculate mark-ups from a municipal security’s PMP, consistent with Rule G-30 and the supplementary material thereunder, particularly Supplementary Material .06 (sometimes referred to as the “waterfall” guidance or analysis). Under the applicable standard of “reasonable diligence” (discussed below), dealers may rely on reasonable policies and procedures to facilitate PMP determination, provided the policies and procedures are consistent with Rule G-30 and are consistently applied.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 12 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.2  Does the PMP guidance in Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06 apply for mark-up (and mark-down) disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30?

Yes. Dealers should read the guidance in Supplementary Material .06 together with Rule G-30 and all the other supplementary material thereto. For example, while Supplementary Material .06 provides guidance in determining the PMP, Supplementary Material .01(a) explains that dealers must exercise “reasonable diligence” in establishing the market value of a security, and Supplementary Material .01(d) states that dealer compensation on a principal transaction with a customer is determined from the PMP of the security, as described in Supplementary Material .06. Read as a whole, Rule G-30 requires dealers to use reasonable diligence to determine the PMP of a municipal security in accordance with Supplementary Material .06.[2] This standard applies for mark-up disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 25; 28 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 9-11 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.2.1  Does the functionally separate trading desk exception apply for purposes of determining the PMP of a security?

No. As explained in the rule filing, this exception “would only apply to determine whether or not the [mark-up] disclosure requirement has been triggered; it does not change the dealer’s requirements relating to the calculation of its mark-up or mark-down under Rule G-30.”

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at n. 20 (September 1, 2016)

(March 19, 2018)

3.3  When reading the PMP guidance in Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06, what does the language in parentheses mean?

Unless the context requires otherwise, language in parentheses that is not preceded by an “i.e.,” or “e.g.,” within sentences refers to scenarios where a dealer is charging a customer a mark-down. Thus, for example, in the phrase, “contemporaneous dealer purchases (sales) in the municipal security in question from (to) institutional accounts,” the terms “(sales)” and “(to)” apply where a dealer is charging a customer a mark-down.

(July 12, 2017)

3.4  When should dealers determine PMP and calculate the mark-up to be disclosed on a confirmation?

The MSRB recognizes that dealers may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations such that this may occur at the end of the day, or during the day for firms that use real-time, intra-day confirmation generation processes. Therefore, although the objective must always be to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction, different dealers may consistently conduct the analysis to make that determination at different times. Specifically, dealers may base their mark-up calculations for confirmation disclosure purposes on the information they have available to them (based on the exercise of reasonable diligence) at the time they systematically input relevant transaction information into the systems they use to generate confirmations.

This means that a dealer that systematically inputs the information at the time of trade may determine the PMP—and therefore, the mark-up—at the same time (even if the confirmation itself is not printed until the end of day). On the other hand, if a dealer systematically inputs such information at the end of the day, the dealer must use the information available to the dealer at that time to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction—and, therefore, the mark-up.

The timing of the determination must be applied consistently across all transactions in municipal securities (e.g., the dealer may not enter information into its systems at the time of trade and determine the PMP at the time of trade for some trades but at the end of the day for others).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 24 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 10 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.4.1  May a dealer determine PMP between the time of trade and the end of the day? 

Yes. The MSRB recognizes that firms may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations, and dealers are not limited to determining PMP for purposes of confirmation disclosure only at the times provided as examples in Question 3.4 (i.e., the time of trade or the end of the day). While the objective must always be to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction, as noted above in Question 3.4, PMP may be determined for disclosure purposes when a firm systematically enters the information into its confirmation generation system, based on information that is reasonably available to it at that time. Accordingly, a dealer may determine PMP at various times, including at the time of the trade, at the end of the day, or at times in between, provided the dealer does so according to reasonable, consistently applied policies and procedures and does not “cherry pick” favorable data.

(March 19, 2018)

3.4.2  May a dealer determine PMP at the time of trade (or at some other time before the end of the day) and wait until later in the day to analyze which trades triggered the disclosure requirement?

Yes. A dealer may determine PMP, enter the PMP information into a confirmation generation system, and later populate the mark-up field only on confirmations of trades that trigger disclosure. The MSRB would expect in such cases that the PMP determination would not be subject to change when the dealer performs the trigger analysis later in the day, other than for a reasonable exception review process (as discussed in Question 3.8.1). In all cases, dealers must follow consistently applied policies and procedures and may not “cherry pick” favorable data. Dealers are reminded that when determining PMP, they must use the information reasonably available to them at the time of the PMP determination and that the objective is always to determine the price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction.

(March 19, 2018)

3.4.3  What is considered a confirmation generation system, for purposes of the guidance on when dealers may determine PMP for disclosure purposes?

As noted above in Question 3.4, the MSRB recognizes that dealers may employ different processes for generating customer confirmations. For purposes of this guidance, the MSRB would consider a dealer to enter information systematically into a confirmation generation system when it stores the information in a location that is part of the confirmation generation process. The MSRB expects that the stored PMP information would not be subject to change, other than for a reasonable exception review process (as discussed in Question 3.8.1). The MSRB also expects that a dealer will clearly explain in its policies and procedures its confirmation generation process, including the timing and role of each material step in the process.

(March 19, 2018)

3.5  Once dealers determine PMP and input relevant information into their confirmation generation systems, would they be required to cancel and correct a confirmation to revise a disclosed mark-up if later events might contribute to a different PMP determination?

No. The disclosure must be accurate, based on the dealer’s exercise of reasonable diligence, as of the time the dealer systematically inputs the information into its systems to generate the disclosure. Once the dealer has input the information into its confirmation generation systems, the MSRB does not expect dealers to send revised confirmations solely based on the occurrence of a subsequent transaction or event that would otherwise be relevant to PMP determination under Rule G-30. On a voluntary basis, dealers may correct a confirmation, pursuant to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 24 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.5.1 If a dealer corrects the price to a customer or determines that, at the time the dealer systematically entered the information into its systems to generate the mark-up disclosure, the PMP was inaccurate, must the dealer send a corrected confirmation that reflects a corrected mark-up disclosure and price?

Yes. Consistent with Question 3.5, dealers are not required to cancel and correct a confirmation to revise a disclosed mark-up solely based on the occurrence of a subsequent transaction or event that would otherwise be relevant to PMP determination under Rule G-30. However, if the dealer corrects the price to the customer or determines that a PMP was inaccurate at the time it was systematically entered into the dealer’s confirmation generation system, the dealer must send a confirmation that reflects an accurate mark-up and price.

(March 19, 2018)

3.6  May dealers engage third-party vendors to perform some or all of the steps required to fulfill the mark-up disclosure requirements?

Yes. Dealers may engage third-party service providers to facilitate mark-up disclosure consistent with Rules G-15 and G-30. For example, dealers that wish to perform most of the steps of the waterfall internally may choose to use the services of a vendor at the economic models level of the waterfall. Other dealers may wish to use the services of a vendor to perform most or all of the steps of the waterfall. In either case, the dealers retain the responsibility for ensuring the PMP is determined in accordance with Rule G-30 and that the mark-up is disclosed in compliance with Rule G-15 and must exercise due diligence and oversight over their third-party relationships.

As a policy matter, the MSRB does not endorse or approve the use of any specific vendors.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.7  May dealers use a third-party evaluated pricing service as an economic model at the final step of the waterfall?

Yes. However, before doing so, the dealer should have a reasonable basis for believing the third-party pricing service’s pricing methodologies produce evaluated prices that reflect actual prevailing market prices. A dealer would not have a reasonable basis for such a belief, for example, where a periodic review of the evaluated prices provided by the pricing service frequently (over the course of multiple trades) reveals a substantial difference between the evaluated prices and the prices at which actual transactions in the relevant securities occurred. In choosing to use evaluated prices from any pricing service, a dealer should assess, among other things, the quality of the evaluated prices provided by the service and the extent to which the service determines its evaluated prices on an intra-day basis.

To be clear, dealers are not required to use such pricing services at this stage of the waterfall analysis. Rather, third-party evaluated pricing services are only one type of economic model. Other types of economic models may include internally developed models such as a discounted cash flow model or a reasonable and consistent methodology to be used in connection with an applicable index or benchmark. Dealers are reminded that when using an internally developed model, the dealer must be able to provide information that the dealer used on the day of the transaction to develop the pricing information (i.e., the data that was input and the data that the model generated and the dealer used to arrive at the PMP).

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.8  May dealers use or rely on automated systems to determine PMP?

Yes. While dealers are not required to automate the PMP determination and mark-up disclosure, they may choose to do so, provided they (and/or their vendors) do so consistent with Rule G-30 and Rule G-15, and all other applicable rules. The MSRB has provided guidance in several areas during the rulemaking process to facilitate automation for firms that choose to employ it. First, as noted above in Question 3.4, dealers are permitted on certain conditions to determine PMP on an intra-day basis (e.g., at the time of trade), allowing dealers that generate confirmations intra-day to continue to do so. Second, as noted in Question 3.1 and discussed throughout this guidance, the MSRB has acknowledged that dealers may develop policies and procedures that rely on reasonable, objective criteria to apply the PMP guidance in Supplementary Material .06 at a systematic level. Consistent with the reasonable policies and procedures approach, the MSRB further recognized during the rulemaking process that reasonable policies and procedures could result in different firms making different PMP determinations for the same security. (The MSRB would expect, however, that the consistent application of policies and procedures within a dealer would result in different traders or desks arriving at PMP determinations that are substantially the same under comparable facts and circumstances.)

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 7-8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.8.1 May dealers adopt a reasonable exception review process to evaluate PMP determinations?

Yes. As a general matter, the MSRB expects that dealers will employ supervisory review processes that consider, among other things, the reliability of their (or their vendors’) PMP determinations. To review reliability, a dealer might review PMP determinations that result in mark-ups that exceed pre-determined thresholds, and it also might compare PMP determinations with some other measure of market value to ascertain whether the PMP determinations fall outside pre-established ranges.

In cases where a dealer reviews PMP determinations before the associated trade confirmations are sent, dealers may correct PMP determinations to promote more accurate mark-up calculations, provided they do so according to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures. As a general matter, however, the MSRB expects that it will be rare for a dealer to correct the PMP of a security based on exception reporting, and documentation in such situations will be paramount. To prevent “cherry picking,” the dealer’s policies and procedures should be specific in describing the PMP review process and the conditions under which the dealer may show that a PMP was erroneous (e.g., the PMP determination was based on an isolated transaction, or a PMP determined through the use of an economic model did not reflect recent news about the security). If a dealer determines that a PMP is erroneous, it must correct it consistent with Rule G-30, and it must do so using the information reasonably available to it at the time it makes the correction.

There may also be cases where a dealer’s exception review process results in corrected customer trade prices. For example, a dealer may review a trade where the mark-up exceeded a pre-determined threshold and the PMP was determined correctly. Dealers may refer to Question 3.5.1 in these cases.

(March 19, 2018)

3.9  May dealers develop objective criteria to automatically determine whether a trade is “contemporaneous” for purposes of establishing a presumptive PMP at the first step of the waterfall analysis?

Yes. Dealers may establish an objective set of criteria to determine whether a trade is contemporaneous, provided the objective criteria are established based on the exercise of reasonable diligence. For example, dealers could define an objective period of time as a default proxy for determining whether the trade is contemporaneous. Dealers could also define criteria to consider other relevant factors, such as whether intervening trades by other firms occurred at prices sufficiently different than the dealer’s trade to suggest that the dealer’s trade no longer reasonably reflects the current market price for the security, or whether changes in interest rates or the credit quality of the security, or news reports were significant enough to reasonably change the PMP of the security.

Given the different trading characteristics of different municipal securities, and relevant court and SEC case law applicable to debt securities in general, it likely would not be reasonable for a dealer’s policies and procedures to determine categorically that all transactions that occur outside of a specified time frame are not “contemporaneous.” Accordingly, dealers should include in their policies and procedures an opportunity to review and override the automatic application of default proxies (e.g., by reconsidering the application for transactions identified through reasonable exception reporting and specifying designated time intervals (or market events) after which such proxies will be reviewed).

(July 12, 2017)

3.10  Since Rule G-15 adopts a same-day trigger standard for mark-up disclosure, would it be reasonable to assume a same-day standard for determining whether trades are contemporaneous for purposes of determining PMP under Rule G-30?

The MSRB notes that the determination of whether mark-up disclosure is required under Rule G-15 is distinct from the determination of whether a transaction is contemporaneous under the waterfall analysis. The PMP guidance under Rule G-30 provides that a dealer’s cost is considered contemporaneous if the transaction occurs close enough in time to the subject transaction that it would reasonably be expected to reflect the current market price for the municipal security. While same-day transactions may often be contemporaneous according to this meaning, the MSRB has not set forth a specific time-period that is categorically contemporaneous. As noted above in Question 3.9, the MSRB would expect that dealers developing objective criteria for this purpose would base the determination of such criteria on the exercise of reasonable diligence.

(July 12, 2017)

3.11  How should dealers determine their contemporaneous cost if they have multiple contemporaneous purchases?

Dealers may rely on reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures that employ methodologies to establish PMP where they have multiple contemporaneous principal trades. For example, a dealer could employ consistently an average weighted price or a last price methodology. Such methodologies could further account for the type of principal trade, giving greater weight to principal trades with other dealers than to principal trades with customers.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 12-13 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.12  What is the next step in the analysis, when determining contemporaneous cost or proceeds, if a dealer has no contemporaneous transactions with another dealer?

Where the dealer has no contemporaneous cost or proceeds, as applicable, from an inter-dealer transaction, the dealer must then consider whether it has contemporaneous cost or proceeds, as applicable, from a customer transaction. Note that, because the dealer’s contemporaneous cost or proceeds from a customer transaction will also include the mark-up or mark-down charged in that transaction, the dealer should adjust its contemporaneous cost or proceeds from that customer transaction to account for the mark-up or mark-down included in the price. In these instances, the difference between the dealer’s “adjusted contemporaneous cost or proceeds” (the dealer’s contemporaneous cost or proceeds in the customer transaction, adjusted by the mark-up or mark-down) and the price to its customer is equal to the mark-up (or mark-down) to be disclosed on customer confirmations under Rule G-15. The MSRB has noted that this approach allows the dealer to avoid “double counting” in the mark-up and mark-down it discloses to each customer. For example, if a dealer buys 100 bonds from Customer A at a price of 98 and immediately sells 100 of the same bonds to Customer B at a price of 100, the dealer may apportion the mark-up and mark-down paid by each customer. Assuming for illustration that the dealer determines the PMP in accordance with the waterfall guidance to be 99, then the dealer would disclose to Customer A a total dollar amount mark-down of $1,000, also expressed as 1.01% of PMP, and it would disclose to Customer B a total dollar amount mark-up of $1,000, also expressed as 1.01% of PMP.[3]

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 21 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.13  May dealers adjust their contemporaneous cost to reflect what they believe to be a more accurate PMP, or their role taking risk to provide liquidity?

Dealers may adjust their contemporaneous cost only in one case: where a dealer’s offsetting trades that trigger disclosure under Rule G-15 are both customer transactions (discussed above at Question 3.12). Other adjustments to reflect the size or side of market for a dealer’s contemporaneous cost are not permitted.

(July 12, 2017)

3.14  May dealers apportion their expected aggregate monthly fees—for example to access an alternative trading system (ATS) or other trading platform—to individual contemporaneous transactions to be included in their contemporaneous costs?

No. For any given mark-up on a transaction, Supplementary Material .06 requires dealers to look first to their contemporaneous cost as incurred. The MSRB does not believe it would be consistent with Rule G-30 for dealers to consider an estimated apportionment of a future charge to be part of the specific cost they incurred in a contemporaneous transaction.

(July 12, 2017)

3.15  In determining contemporaneous cost, may dealers include transaction fees—for example to access an ATS or other trading platform—that were included in the price they paid?

Yes, provided the transaction fee is reflected in the price of the contemporaneous trade that is reported to EMMA, consistent with MSRB rules and guidance on pricing, trade reporting and fees. The MSRB will monitor and adjust this guidance as needed if it determines that pricing practices change in a way that diminishes the utility and reliability of mark-up disclosure.

(July 12, 2017)

3.16  May a dealer treat its own contemporaneous transaction as “isolated” and therefore disregard it when determining PMP?

No. Under Supplementary Material .06, isolated transactions or isolated quotations generally will have little or no weight or relevance in establishing PMP. The guidance also specifically provides that, in the municipal market, an “off-market” transaction may qualify as an isolated transaction. Through cross-references, Supplementary Material .06 makes clear that a dealer may deem a transaction or quotation at the hierarchy of pricing factors or similar-securities level of the waterfall to be isolated. However, the concept of “isolated” transactions or quotations does not apply to a dealer’s contemporaneous cost, which presumptively determines PMP.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 19; 21 (September 1, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.17  Supplementary Material .06 notes that changes in interest rates may allow a dealer to overcome the presumption that its own contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP. Does this refer only to formal policy interest rate changes, or does it also contemplate market changes in interest rates?

It refers to any change in interest rates, whether the change is caused by formal policy decisions or market events. However, Supplementary Material .06 notes that a dealer may overcome the presumption that its contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP based on a change in interest rates only in instances where they have changed after the dealer’s transaction to a degree that such change would reasonably cause a change in municipal securities pricing.

(July 12, 2017)

3.18  Supplementary Material .06 notes that changes in the credit quality of the municipal security may allow a dealer to overcome the presumption that its own contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP. Does this refer only to formal credit rating changes, or does it also contemplate market changes in implied or observed credit spreads such as those due to market-wide credit spread volatility or anticipated changes in the credit quality of the individual issuer?

It refers to any changes to credit quality, with respect to that particular security or the particular issuer of that security, whether the change is caused by a formal ratings announcement or market events. Thus, for example, this could include changes in the guarantee or collateral supporting repayment as well as significant recent information concerning the issuer that is not yet incorporated in credit ratings (e.g., changes to ratings outlooks). However, Supplementary Material .06 notes that a dealer may overcome the presumption that its contemporaneous cost is the best measure of PMP based on a change in credit quality only in instances where it has changed significantly after the dealer’s transaction.

(July 12, 2017)

3.18.1 When considering inter-dealer trades at the hierarchy of pricing factors level of the waterfall analysis, if the only contemporaneous inter-dealer trades in the security are executed at the same time and involve a broker’s broker or an ATS, may a dealer choose to determine PMP by reference to the inter-dealer trade price which is reasonably likely to be on the opposite side of the market from the dealer seeking to determine PMP?

Yes. Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence, dealers may adopt a reasonable approach to consistently choosing between or referring to multiple contemporaneous inter-dealer trades. If the only contemporaneous inter-dealer trades in the security are executed at the same time and involve a broker’s broker or an ATS in the security, it may be reasonable for the dealer seeking to determine PMP to do so by reference to the trade price which is reasonably likely to be on the opposite side of the market from the dealer seeking to determine PMP.

For example, assume that Dealer XYZ is selling a municipal security to a retail customer. Also, assume that the dealer lacks contemporaneous cost and that there are only two contemporaneous inter-dealer transactions in the security, and that both of those transactions occur at the exact same time and in the exact same trade amount. Additionally, both inter-dealer transactions are identified by an ATS special condition indicator on EMMA. One transaction is executed at a price of 113.618 and the other is executed at a price of 113.868. Assume further that the difference between these two ATS transaction prices is in the customary and typical range of the fee an ATS would charge for its services. In this case, it may be reasonable for Dealer XYZ to conclude that the transaction at 113.618 reflects a sale from a dealer to an ATS taking a principal position in the security, and that the transaction at 113.868 reflects a sale from that ATS to another dealer. Under these circumstances, Dealer XYZ may reasonably determine the PMP by reference to the transaction at 113.868, because the counterparty to the ATS in that transaction was purchasing the security and thus on the opposite side of the market from the side of Dealer XYZ in its customer trade.

(March 19, 2018)

3.19 May dealers adopt a reasonable default proxy where the waterfall guidance refers to trades between dealers and institutional accounts with which any dealer regularly effects transactions in the same security, if such information cannot be ascertained through reasonable diligence?

Yes. Consistent with the Rule G-30 standard of “reasonable diligence” in establishing the PMP of a municipal security, dealers reasonably may use objective criteria as a proxy for the elements of these steps of the waterfall that they cannot reasonably ascertain, such as whether a customer transaction involves an institutional customer and whether that institutional customer regularly trades in the same security with any dealer. A reasonable approach might assume that transactions at or above a $1,000,000 par amount involve institutional customers, since that size transaction is conventionally considered to be an institutional-sized transaction. In addition, because institutional investors transacting at or above this size threshold are typically sophisticated investors, the same size proxy might be used to assume that the institutional customer regularly transacts with a dealer in the same security.

(July 12, 2017)

3.19.1 May a dealer reasonably determine that new issue trade prices executed at list offering/takedown prices are not reflective of the PMP at the time of their execution?

Yes. Because new issues may be priced days before the transactions are executed and reported to RTRS, a dealer may, but is not required to, determine that new issue trades executed at list offering or takedown prices are not reflective of the PMP at the time of their execution. These transactions generally are denoted by a list offering price/takedown indicator on EMMA and in the MSRB Transaction Subscription Service. Market participants may also determine the list offering price by viewing the security’s home page (i.e., the Security Details page) on EMMA.

(March 19, 2018)

3.20  Can an “all-to-all” platform (i.e., one that allows non-dealers to participate) qualify as an inter-dealer mechanism at the step of the waterfall that refers to bids and offers for actively traded securities?

Yes, provided that the dealer determines that the prices available on an “all-to-all” platform are generally consistent with inter-dealer prices. Dealers should include in their policies and procedures how they will periodically review a platform’s activity to make such a determination.

(July 12, 2017)

3.21  When considering bid and offer quotations from an inter-dealer mechanism, how many inter-dealer mechanisms must a dealer check before considering the next category of factors under the waterfall analysis?

The obligation to determine PMP requires a dealer to use reasonable diligence. It does not require a dealer to seek out and consider every potentially relevant data point available in the market. With respect to this factor in the waterfall analysis, a dealer must only seek out and consider enough information to reasonably determine that there is no probative information to determine PMP before proceeding to the next category of factors.

(July 12, 2017)

3.22  In considering bids and offers for actively traded securities made through an inter-dealer mechanism, how can a dealer determine that transactions generally occur at the displayed quotations on the inter-dealer mechanism?

Consistent with the Rule G-30 standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable policies and procedures approach, a dealer could request and assess from the platform relevant statistics and relevant information reasonably sufficient to conclude that the inter-dealer mechanism meets the applicable requirements under Supplementary Material .06. A dealer could then periodically request and assess updated statistics and relevant information to confirm that the inter-dealer mechanism continues to satisfy the requirements.

(July 12, 2017)

3.23  At the similar securities stage of the waterfall analysis, how can a dealer determine on a systematic basis that an inter-dealer quotation is “validated”?

Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures approach to the PMP determination, for example, a dealer could determine that a bid (offer) quotation is validated if it is quoted on an “inter-dealer mechanism” (including the all-to-all platforms that qualify, as discussed above). With respect to a dealer’s own bids or offers, dealers are reminded of their existing regulatory obligations under applicable MSRB rules regarding bona fide bids or offers and the requirement that any published quotations must be based on the dealer’s best judgment of the fair market value of the securities. See, e.g., Rule G-13 and MSRB Notice to Dealers That Use the Services of Broker’s Brokers (December 22, 2012). Dealers are also reminded that under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06, isolated transactions or isolated quotations (including those that are off-market) generally will have little or no weight or relevance in establishing the PMP of a security.

Due to the lack of bid (offer) quotations for many municipal securities, under the waterfall analysis, dealers in the municipal securities market may not often find information from contemporaneous bid (offer) quotations in the municipal securities market.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.24  May a dealer use the same process it uses to identify a “similar” security for best-execution purposes to identify “similar” securities for PMP purposes?

Yes. Assuming the dealer’s process for identifying “similar” securities for Rule G-18 best-execution purposes is reasonable and in compliance with Rule G-18, a dealer may rely on the same process in connection with identifying similar securities under Rule G-30, Supplementary Material .06.

Alternatively, due to the different purposes of the “similar” security analysis for best-execution purposes as compared to PMP determination purposes, dealers reasonably may adopt a more restrictive approach to identifying “similar” securities for Rule G-30 than they may for Rule G-18. While the relevant part of the best-execution analysis under Rule G-18 seeks to identify the best market to address a customer’s order or inquiry by reference to another security, the relevant part of the waterfall analysis seeks to identify the PMP of one security by reference to another security. Further, Rule G-30 Supplementary Material .06 provides that, in order to qualify as a “similar” security, at a minimum, the municipal security should be sufficiently similar that a market yield for the subject security can be fairly estimated from the yield of the “similar” security. Due to the large number and diversity of municipal securities, the MSRB is of the view that, generally, if the prices or yields of a security would require an adjustment in order to account for differences between the security and the subject security, it would be reasonable for a dealer to determine that that security is not sufficiently “similar” to the subject security for purposes of Supplementary Material .06. To be clear, dealers have the flexibility to determine that a security that requires an immaterial adjustment in order to account for differences is sufficiently “similar” for these purposes, but they are not required to do so. This approach also is consistent with the MSRB’s view that, in order for a security to qualify as sufficiently “similar,” the security must be at least highly similar to the subject security with respect to nearly all the “similar” security factors listed in Rule G-30 Supplementary Material .06(b)(ii) that are relevant to the subject security.

Whichever approach a dealer chooses to apply, the dealer must apply that approach consistently across all municipal securities.

Due to the lack of active trading in many municipal securities and the above discussion regarding the identification of “similar” securities in the municipal securities market, under the waterfall analysis, dealers in the municipal securities market may not often find information from sufficiently similar securities as compared to dealers in other fixed income markets.

Because of the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the MSRB response to this question may differ from the FINRA interpretation under FINRA Rule 2121.

(July 12, 2017)

3.24.1 How many “similar” securities must a dealer consider at the “similar” securities stage of the waterfall analysis?

The obligation to determine PMP requires a dealer to use reasonable diligence. It does not require a dealer to seek out and consider every potentially relevant data point available in the market. At this point in the waterfall analysis, a dealer must only seek out and consider enough information to reasonably determine that it has identified the prevailing market price of the security (or that there is no probative information to determine PMP before proceeding to the next level). A dealer’s policies and procedures should explain the process for identifying similar securities (and, if relevant, how the dealer may adjust the prices or yields of identified similar securities). Because the reasonable diligence standard is often guided by industry norms, dealers should periodically revisit their policies and procedures to ensure that their established processes continue to remain reasonable.

Due to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, including the large number of issuers and the bespoke nature of many municipal securities, it is unlikely that the dealer will identify a substantial number of “similar” securities for many municipal securities. For example, it would be reasonable for a dealer to determine that a comparison security is not sufficiently “similar” to the subject security for purposes of Supplementary Material .06 if the prices or yields of the comparison security would require an adjustment in order to account for differences between that security and the subject security.

(March 19, 2018)

3.25  How is the “relative weight” provision in paragraphs (a)(v) (regarding the hierarchy of pricing factors) and (a)(vi) (regarding similar securities) of Supplementary Material .06 meant to be used in operation?

This provision is meant to be used when there is more than one comparison transaction or quotation within the categories specified in the hierarchy of pricing factors and when there is more than one comparison transaction or quotation within the similar securities level of the waterfall analysis. In these cases, a dealer may consider the facts and circumstances of the comparison transactions or quotations to determine the weight or degree of influence to attribute to a particular transaction or quotation. For example, a dealer might give greater weight to more recent (timely) comparison transactions or quotations. Similarly, to the extent a dealer considers comparison transactions or quotations in which the dealer is on the same side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction (if known from dealer customer trade reports),[4] a dealer might give relatively less weight or influence to such information in determining PMP than information from transactions or quotations in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction.

Consistent with the standard of reasonable diligence and a reasonable policies and procedures approach to the PMP determination, a dealer may adopt a reasonable methodology that it will consistently apply when considering the facts and circumstances of comparison transactions or quotations and assigning relative weight to such transactions or quotations. For example, a dealer might employ an average weighted price methodology (if all relevant trade sizes are publicly available) or last price methodology, provided its policies and procedures called for the reasonable and consistent use of the methodology and did not ignore potentially relevant facts and circumstances, such as side of the market.

Due to the unique characteristics of the municipal securities market, the MSRB response to this question may differ from the FINRA interpretation under FINRA Rule 2121.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.26  When dealers consider the hierarchy of pricing factors under Supplementary Material .06(a)(v), or similar securities factors under paragraph (a)(vi), may they consider the size of comparison transactions to determine their relative weight?

Yes. Paragraphs (a)(v) and (a)(vi) include a non-exhaustive list of facts and circumstances that may impact the “relative weight” of comparison transactions or quotations that may be considered at that point in the waterfall analysis. The MSRB believes it would be reasonable to consider the size of a comparison transaction when considering its relative weight.

(July 12, 2017)

3.27  What is an “applicable index” as that term is used at the “similar securities” level of Supplementary Material .06?

Supplementary Material .06 lists a number of non-exclusive factors that a dealer can look to in determining whether a security is sufficiently “similar” to the subject security. One of these factors is how comparably they trade over an applicable index or U.S. Treasury securities of a similar duration. The inclusion of the more general term “applicable index,” is intended to give dealers flexibility to consider, for example, commonly used municipal market bond indices, yield curves and benchmarks as these may be more relevant than data on Treasury securities (especially for tax-exempt bonds).

Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 5 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

3.28  Must dealers keep their PMP determination for each trade in their books and records?

The MSRB believes that dealers should keep records to demonstrate their compliance with Rule G-30, particularly where they have the evidentiary burden to demonstrate why a contemporaneous transaction was not the best measure of PMP for a given trade. The MSRB further notes that it would expect PMP documentation to be an important component of a firm’s system to supervise compliance with Rules G-15 and G-30.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 20 n. 39 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 8 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

3.29  Is there a difference between the PMP that is determined for mark-up disclosure purposes under Rule G-15 and for fair pricing purposes under Rule G-30?

As noted during the rulemaking process, the MSRB recognizes that by allowing dealers to determine PMP for mark-up disclosure purposes at the time of entry of information into systems for confirmation generation, a mark-up disclosed on a confirmation may not reflect subsequent trades that could be considered “contemporaneous” under Supplementary Material .06. However, the MSRB does not believe it is necessary to make a formal distinction between a PMP determined for disclosure purposes and a PMP determined for other regulatory purposes. Still, in connection with any post-transaction fair pricing review process, dealers should not disregard any new information relevant under Supplementary Material .06 that occurs after the mark-up determination (e.g., contemporaneous proceeds obtained after the customer transaction).

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 14; 25; 28 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 10 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

Section 4:  Time of Execution and Security-Specific URL Disclosures

4.1  When must dealers disclose the time of execution on a customer confirmation?

Under Rule G-15, dealers must disclose the time of execution for all transactions, including principal and agency transactions. However, for transactions in municipal fund securities and transactions for an institutional account, as defined in Rule G-8(a)(xi), in lieu of disclosing the time of execution, dealers may instead include on the confirmation a statement that the time of execution will be furnished upon written request of the customer. This time-of-execution disclosure requirement is not limited to circumstances where mark-up disclosure is triggered; therefore, it is required even where mark-up disclosure is not.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13-14 (September 1, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4-5 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

4.2  How should the time of execution be disclosed?

Dealers have an obligation under Rule G-14, on reports of sales or purchases of municipal securities, to report the “time of trade” to the MSRB’s Real-Time Transaction Reporting System. In addition, dealers have an obligation under Rule G-8(a)(vii) to make and keep records of the time of execution of principal transactions in municipal securities. The time of execution for confirmation disclosure purposes is the same as the time of trade for Rule G-14 reporting purposes and the time of execution for purposes of Rule G-8(a)(vii), except that dealers should omit all seconds, without rounding to the minute, from the time-of-execution disclosure because the trade data displayed on EMMA does not include seconds.

Alternatively, if disclosure in this format is operationally challenging or burdensome for a dealer, a dealer may choose to disclose the seconds, again without rounding to the minute (e.g., a time of trade of 10:00:59 may be disclosed as 10:00:59 or 10:00). Additionally, because EMMA displays the time of trade in eastern standard time (EST), dealers may disclose on the customer confirmation the time of execution in either military time (as reported to RTRS under Rule G-14) or in traditional EST with an AM or PM indicator (e.g., a time of trade of 14:00:59 may be disclosed on a confirmation as 14:00:59, 14:00, 2:00:59 PM or 02:00 PM). The time-of-execution disclosure format used by a dealer should be consistent for all municipal securities transaction confirmations on which the disclosure is provided.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 14 n. 29 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 n. 11 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.3  When must dealers disclose a security-specific URL on a customer confirmation?

Under Rule G-15, dealers must disclose a security-specific URL, in a format specified by the MSRB as discussed below, for all non-institutional customer trades other than transactions in municipal fund securities, even where mark-up disclosure is not required. In the rare situations where there is no CUSIP assigned for a security that is subject to Rule G-15 at the time the dealer trades the security with a customer, the dealer is not required to include the security-specific URL on the customer confirmation.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13-14; 27; 35 (September 1, 2016); Amendment No. 1 to SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 4 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.4  What is the security-specific URL that must be disclosed?

The template for the URL that must be disclosed under Rule G-15 is:  https://emma.msrb.org/cusip/[insert CUSIP number]. [5] The URL is currently live and operational. Paper confirmations must include this URL with the security-specific CUSIP in print form; electronic confirmations must include the security-specific URL as a hyperlink to the web page.

MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 (November 14, 2016)

FINRA has provided its own security-specific URL template in its guidance.

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.5  Do dealers need to provide any other disclosure concerning the security-specific URL?

Yes. Dealers must include a brief description of the type of information that is available on the security-specific web page for the subject security, such as information about the prices of other transactions in the same security, the official statement and other disclosures for the security, ratings and other market data and educational material. To be clear, the disclosure does not need to describe with specificity all of the information available on the relevant web page. As described above, the description should be brief. Additionally, it only needs to describe enough information about the relevant web page that a reasonable investor would understand the type of information available on that page. For example, the following language would satisfy this obligation: “For more information about this security (including the official statement and trade and price history), visit [insert link]."[6]  Because this language is an example only, dealers may use other language to describe the content of the web page.

As a reminder, Rule G-15(a)(i)(E) requires all requirements to be clearly and specifically indicated on the front of the confirmation, subject to limited exceptions. Because the description of the type of information available on the security-specific web page is not listed as an exception, it must be on the front of the confirmation.

SR-MSRB-2016-12 Proposed Rule Change to MSRB Rules G-15 and G-30, at 13; 27 (September 1, 2016); MSRB Response to Comments on SR-MSRB-2016-12, at 6 n. 9 (November 14, 2016)

(July 12, 2017)

(Updated March 19, 2018)

4.6 Is disclosure of the time of execution or security-specific URL required for transactions that involve a dealer and a registered investment adviser?

No. Disclosure of the time of execution and security-specific URL is not required for transactions with an institutional customer. Under Rule G-15, a registered investment adviser is an institutional accountholder; accordingly, disclosure is not required for these transactions. This is the case even if the registered investment adviser with whom the dealer transacted later allocates all or a portion of the securities to a retail account or where the transaction is executed directly for a retail account if the investment adviser has discretion over the transaction. The MSRB notes that this answer is specific to the time-of-execution and security-specific URL disclosure requirements in Rule G-15; it is not intended to alter any other obligations.

(July 12, 2017)

[1] EMMA is a registered trademark of the MSRB.

[2] Prior to May 14, 2018, Supplementary Material .01(d) provides that dealer compensation on a principal transaction is considered to be a mark-up or mark-down that is computed from the inter-dealer market price prevailing at the time of the customer transaction. As of May 14, 2018, the reference to the prevailing “inter-dealer” price is amended to instead, as noted above, reference the “prevailing market price,” as described in Supplementary Material .06. Supplementary Material .06, which applies to customer transactions and not internal position movements, generally embodies the principle that the PMP of a security is generally the price at which dealers trade with one another. This underlying principle does not mean that dealers may avoid following the steps of the waterfall analysis in the specific order prescribed in Supplementary Material .06. However, it remains a useful principle that dealers may wish to consider in approaching certain unspecified aspects of the waterfall analysis. The MSRB’s responses to Questions 3.11, 3.12, 3.20 and 3.23, in part, are reflective of this underlying principle. Other answers, including those in response to Questions 3.9, 3.10, 3.21 and 3.25 are reflective of the MSRB’s longstanding “reasonable diligence” standard, discussed above.

[3] This example assumes that the dealer has identified that it has contemporaneous cost and proceeds at the time that it is determining the mark-up and mark-down to each customer. If this is not the case, however, because the dealer systematically inputs information into its systems for the generation of PMP at the time of trade, then there is a different result. For example, assume that the trade at 98 occurs at 10:00 AM, the trade at 100 occurs at 3:00 PM and these trades are contemporaneous. If the dealer systematically determines PMP at the time of trade, consistent with Question 3.4, at the time of the 10:00 AM trade, the dealer may simply proceed down the waterfall to determine the PMP for the security without the need to adjust that PMP. At the time of the 3:00 PM trade, however, the dealer should adjust its contemporaneous cost as described above to account for the mark-down included in the price.

[4] At the institutional transactions and quotations categories in the hierarchy of pricing factors level of the waterfall, generally, dealers consider information from only one side of the market, depending on whether the dealer is charging a mark-up or mark-down. However, pursuant to reasonable and consistently applied policies and procedures, a dealer may consider information from transactions in which the dealer is on the other side of the market when reasonable to do so. For example, this may be reasonable where the dealer has identified no comparison transactions in which the dealer is on the opposite side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction. In this case, the dealer may reasonably adjust the transaction price by an amount to account for the price at which that transaction might have occurred had it been a transaction in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction. Also for example, where the dealer has identified comparison transactions on both sides of the market, the dealer reasonably may perform a similar adjustment (i.e., adjust a price from a transaction in which the dealer is on the same side of the market as the dealer in the subject transaction by an amount to account for the price at which that transaction might have occurred had it been a transaction in which the dealer was on the opposite side of the market from the dealer in the subject transaction). A dealer’s ability to consider such information may be particularly important in the municipal market in which securities often trade infrequently and in which dealers may often have such limited information available to them at the time of their PMP determination.

[5] The MSRB previously announced the URL template as: http://emma.msrb.org/cusip/[insert CUSIP number]. Accordingly, confirmations for dealers that began to program their confirmations in accordance with the previously announced URL template may begin with the http format, rather than the https format. The MSRB does not expect such dealers to reprogram the URLs provided on customer confirmations as the http format will continue to function and will automatically redirect to the more secure https site.

[6] As a reminder, for dealers that currently seek to satisfy their obligation to provide a copy of the official statement to customers under Rule G-32(a)(iii) by notifying customers of the availability of the official statement through EMMA, the provision of the link described in this set of FAQs would satisfy both the relevant Rule G-15 security-specific URL obligation and the Rule G-32(a)(iii), provided that, for purposes of Rule G-32(a)(iii), the URL address also is accompanied by the additional information described. For example, if a dealer included the sample description included in this question, the addition of the language “Copies of the official statement are also available from [insert dealer name] upon request” would satisfy both the Rule G-15 security-specific URL obligation and Rule G-32(a)(iii) obligations. 

On April 24, 2009, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (MSRB) published a notice clarifying that “Build America Bonds” and other tax credit bonds are municipal securities and, therefore, subject to MSRB rules.[1]  The MSRB understands that many of these securities contain certain redemption provisions, such as mandatory pro rata sinking funds, and that brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (collectively “dealers”) frequently effect transactions on a basis of “yield to average life.”  The MSRB reminds dealers that, for transactions effected on the basis of “yield to average life,” Rule G-15(a), on customer confirmations, requires the confirmation to display that yield as well as the yield computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5) states requirements for dealers to calculate and display yields and dollar prices on customer confirmations.  For transactions effected on the basis of yield to maturity, call or put date, the yield at which the transaction was effected as well as a dollar price computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity are required to be shown on a confirmation.  Similarly, for transactions effected on the basis of a dollar price, the dollar price at which the transaction was effected along with a yield computed to the lower of an “in whole” call or maturity are required to be shown on a confirmation. 

Sinking funds do not represent “in whole” call features.  Accordingly, MSRB confirmation requirements do not require dealers to compute yield or dollar price to a sinking fund call date or to compute a “yield to average life” using multiple sinking fund dates.  However, dealers should note that if the computed yield otherwise required by Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5) is different than the yield at which the transaction was effected, Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(vii) provides that both the computed yield and the yield at which the transaction was effected must be shown on the confirmation.  Therefore, when a transaction is effected on the basis of “yield to average life,” such yield must be displayed on a customer confirmation. 

Bond insurance companies recently have been subject to increased attention in the municipal securities market as a result of credit rating agency downgrades and ongoing credit agency reviews. Because of these recent events and the prominence of bond insurance in the municipal securities market, the MSRB is publishing this notice to review some of the investor protection rules applicable to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (“dealers”) effecting transactions in insured municipal securities.

RULE G-17 AND TIME OF TRADE DISCLOSURE TO CUSTOMERS

One of the most important MSRB investor protection rules is Rule G-17, which requires dealers to deal fairly with all persons and prohibits deceptive, dishonest, or unfair  practices.  A long-standing interpretation of Rule G-17 is that a dealer transacting with a customer [1] must ensure that the customer is informed of all material facts concerning the  transaction, including a complete description of the security.[2]  Disclosure of material facts to a customer under Rule G-17 may be made orally or in writing, but must be made at or prior to the time of trade. In general, a fact is considered “material” if there is a substantial likelihood that its disclosure would have been considered significant by a reasonable investor.[3]  As applied to customer transactions in insured municipal securities, the disclosures required under Rule G-17 include a description of the securities and identification of any bond insurance as well as material facts that relate to the credit rating of the issue. The disclosures required under Rule G-17 also may include material facts about the credit enhancement applicable to the issue.

March 2002 Notice

In a March 2002 Interpretative Notice, the MSRB provided specific guidance on the disclosure requirements of Rule G-17.[4] The March 2002 Notice clarified that, in addition to the requirement to disclose material facts about a transaction of which the dealer is specifically aware, the dealer is responsible for disclosing any material fact that has been made available through sources such as the NRMSIR system,[5] the Municipal Securities Information Library^® (MSIL^®) system,[6] RTRS,[7] rating agency reports and other sources of information relating to the municipal securities transaction generally used by dealers that effect transactions in the type of municipal securities at issue (collectively, “established industry sources”).[8]  The inclusion of “rating agency reports” within the list of “established industry sources” of information makes clear the Board’s view that information about the rating of a bond, or information  from the rating agency about potential rating actions with respect to a bond, may be material information about the transaction. It follows that, where the issue’s credit rating is based in whole or in part on bond insurance, the credit rating of the insurance company, or information from the rating agency about potential rating actions with respect to the bond insurance company, may be material information about the transaction.

In addition to the actual credit rating of a municipal issue, “underlying” credit ratings are assigned by  rating agencies to some municipal securities issues. An underlying credit rating is assigned to reflect the credit quality of an issue independent of credit enhancements such as bond insurance. The underlying rating (or the lack of an underlying rating)[9] may be relevant to a transaction when the credit rating of the bond insurer is downgraded or is the subject of information from the rating agency about a potential rating action with respect to the insurance company. In order to ensure all required disclosures are made under Rule G-17, a dealer must take into consideration information on underlying credit ratings that is available in established industry sources (or information otherwise known to the dealer) and must incorporate such information when determining the material facts to be disclosed about the transaction.

April 2002 Notice on Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals

In a notice dated April 30, 2002, the MSRB provided additional guidance on Rule G-17 and other customer protection rules as they apply to transactions with a special class of institutional customers known  as “Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals” (“SMMPs”).[10] The April 2002 Notice provides a definition of SMMP, which includes critical elements such as the customer’s financial sophistication and access to established industry sources for municipal securities information. When a dealer has reasonable grounds for concluding that the institutional customer is an SMMP as defined in the April 2002 Notice, the institutional customer necessarily is already aware, or capable of making itself aware of, material facts found in the established industry sources. In addition, the customer in such cases is able to independently understand the significance of such material facts.

The April 2002 Notice provides that a dealer’s Rule G-17 obligation to affirmatively disclose material facts available from established industry sources is qualified to some extent in certain kinds of SMMP transactions. Specifically, when effecting nonrecommended, secondary market transactions, a dealer is not required to provide an SMMP with affirmative disclosure of the material facts that already exist in established industry sources. This differs from the general Rule G-17 requirement of disclosure, discussed above, and therefore may be relevant to dealers trading with SMMPs in insured municipal securities.

RULE G-19 AND SUITABILITY DETERMINATIONS

In addition to the customer disclosure obligations relating to bond insurance and credit ratings, dealers also should be aware of how suitability requirements of MSRB Rule G-19 relate to transactions in insured bonds that are recommended to customers. Rule G-19 provides that a dealer must consider the nature of the security as well as the customer’s financial status, tax status and investment objectives when making recommendations to customers.  The dealer must have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable, based upon information available about the security and the facts disclosed by or otherwise known about the customer.[11] Facts relating to the credit rating of a bond insurer may affect suitability determinations, particularly for customers that have conveyed to the dealer investment objectives relating to credit quality of investments. For example, if a customer has expressed the desire to purchase only “triple A” rated securities, recommendations to the customer should take into account information from rating agencies, including information about potential rating actions that may affect the future “triple A” status of the issue.[12]

RULE G-30 AND FAIR PRICING REQUIREMENTS

Another important investor protection provision within MSRB rules is Rule G-30 on prices and commissions. Rule G-30 requires that, for principal transactions with customers, the dealer must ensure that the price of each transaction is fair and reasonable, taking into account all relevant factors. Dealers should consider the effect of ratings on the value of the securities involved in customer transactions, and should specifically consider the effect of information from rating agencies, both with respect to actual or potential changes in the underlying rating of a security and with respect to actual or potential changes in the rating of any bond insurance applicable to the security.

RULE G-15(a) AND CONFIRMATION DISCLOSURE

The content of information required to be included on customer confirmations of municipal securities transactions is set forth in MSRB Rule G-15(a). For securities with additional credit backing, such as bond insurance, the rule requires the confirmation to state “the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service.”[13]  Rule G-15(a) does not generally require that credit agency ratings be included on customer confirmations. However, if credit ratings are given on the confirmation, the ratings must be correct.

CONCLUSION

Meeting the disclosure requirements of Rule G-17 requires attention to the facts and circumstances of individual transactions as well as attention to the specific securities and customers that are involved in those transactions. In light of recent events affecting credit ratings of bond insurance companies, dealers may wish to review both the March 2002 Notice on Rule G-17 disclosure requirements and the April 2002 Notice on SMMP transactions to ensure compliance with the rule in the changing environment for bond insurance companies. In addition, dealers may wish to review how transactions in insured securities are being recommended, priced and confirmed to customers to ensure compliance with other MSRB investor protection rules.

[1] The word “customer,” as used in this notice, follows the definition in MSRB Rule D-9, which states that a “customer” is any person other than a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer acting in its capacity as such or an issuer in transactions involving the sale by the issuer of a new issue of its securities.

[2] See, e.g., Notice Concerning Disclosure of Call Information to Customers of Municipal Securities (March 4, 1986), MSRB Manual (CCH) para. 3591.

[3]  Se e, e.g., Basic v. Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988).

[4] Interpretive Notice Regarding Rule G-17, on Disclosure of Material Facts, MSRB Notice (March 20, 2002) (hereinafter “March 2002 Notice”).

[6] The MSIL^® system collects and makes available to the marketplace official statements and advance refunding documents submitted under MSRB Rule G-36, on the delivery of official statements, as well as certain secondary market material event disclosures provided by issuers under SEC Rule 15c2-12. Municipal Securities Information Library^® and MSIL^® are registered trademarks of the MSRB.

[7] The MSRB’s Real-Time Transaction Reporting System (“RTRS”) collects and makes available to the marketplace information regarding inter-dealer and dealer-customer transactions in municipal securities.

[8] See March 2002 Notice (emphasis added).

[9] The lack of a rating for a municipal issue does not necessarily imply that the credit quality of such an issue is inferior, but is information that should be taken into account when accessing material facts about a transaction in the security.

[10] Notice Regarding the Application of MSRB Rules to Transactions with Sophisticated Municipal Market Professionals (April 30, 2002) (hereinafter “April 2002 Notice”). [This notice was revised effective July 9, 2012.]

[11] As with Rule G-17, the MSRB has provided specific qualifications with respect to how a dealer fulfills its suitability duties when making recommendations to SMMPs. These are described in the April 2002 Notice on SMMPs, discussed above.

[12] To assure that a dealer effecting a recommended transaction with a non-SMMP customer has the information needed about the customer to make its suitability determination, Rule G-19 requires the dealer to make reasonable efforts to obtain information concerning the customer’s financial status, tax status and investment objectives, as well as any other information reasonable and necessary in making the recommendation. The obligations arising under Rule G-19 in connection with a recommended transaction require a meaningful analysis, taking into consideration the information obtained about the customer and the security, which establishes the reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable. Such suitability determinations should be based on the appropriately weighted factors that are relevant in any particular set of facts and circumstances, which factors may vary from transaction to transaction.  See Reminder of Customer Protection Obligations In Connection With Sales of Municipal Securities, MSRB Notice 2007-17 (May 30, 2007).

[13] The rule provides that, if there is more than one such obligor, the statement “multiple obligors” may be shown.  If a security is unrated by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization, Rule G-15(a) requires dealers to disclose the fact that the security is unrated.

The MSRB has received inquiries regarding an interpretation of rule G-15(a) from dealers who offer automated execution of transactions and charge a small, flat "transaction fee" per transaction.  These dealers asked whether a $15.00 flat fee qualifies as a miscellaneous transaction charge. 

Rule G-15(a) sets out confirmation requirements for transactions with customers and specifies that dealers include a yield on the confirmation.  In computing yield, G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(c)(iii) states that such "computations shall take into account ... commissions charged to the customer ... but shall not take into account incidental transaction fees or miscellaneous charges, provided, however, that ... such fees or charges [are] indicated on the confirmation."  

In a May 14, 1990 Notice Concerning Confirmation Disclosure of Miscellaneous Transaction Charges[1], the MSRB reminded dealers that clear disclosure of the nature and amount of miscellaneous fees is required.  The notice stated that these fees should not be incorporated into the stated yield because they are small and do not significantly affect a customer's return on investment, as shown in the yield.  The notice also stated that miscellaneous fees differ from commissions because they are flat amounts, and, unlike the common practice used in computing commissions for agency transactions, are not related to the par value of the transaction. 

The dealers who contacted the MSRB will charge a flat transaction fee of $15.00 for trades executed through an automated trading system.  Since this fee is relatively small and unrelated to the par value of the transaction, the MSRB believes that the transaction fee should be considered a miscellaneous transaction fee.  Therefore the fee would not have to be incorporated into the stated yield, but would need to be separately disclosed on the confirmation.

MUNICIPAL FUND SECURITIES - REVISED DRAFT RULE CHANGES

The Board is requesting further comments on revised draft rule changes relating to municipal fund securities. Comments are due by November 1, 1999.
 

        On March 17, 1999, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "Board") published a notice (the "March Notice") requesting comments on draft rule changes relating to transactions effected by or through brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers ("dealers") in municipal fund securities (as defined below).⁽¹⁾ The Board received comments from eleven commentators. After reviewing these comments, the Board has determined to republish the draft rule changes, with certain modifications and additions (including a revision to exempt municipal fund securities from underwriting assessments), for further comment from industry participants.

        The Board believes that many of the comments reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of the Board's rulemaking proposals and therefore the Board is taking this opportunity to clarify the scope and intent of these proposals. Specifically, the Board wishes to emphasize that the draft rule changes would not extend the reach of Board rules. Rather, they seek to make Board rules that are already applicable to municipal fund securities more accommodating to the unique features of such securities. Dealers should understand that Board rules apply to their transactions in any security that is a municipal security, regardless of whether the dealer is aware of the security's status. Although the Board does not have authority to direct enforcement of its rules, it is statutorily charged with determining the best means of protecting investors and the public interest in regard to dealer transactions in municipal securities. As such, the Board believes that, under the unique circumstances relating to municipal fund securities, enforcement of its rules with regard to transactions in such securities that occurred prior to the industry having been put on notice of their applicability would serve no substantial investor protection purpose, absent extraordinary circumstances or a showing of investor harm resulting from a material departure from standards of fairness generally applicable under the federal securities laws.
 

SCOPE AND INTENT OF BOARD RULEMAKING WITH RESPECT TO MUNICIPAL FUND SECURITIES

        Dealers that effect transactions in municipal securities are subject to the Board's jurisdiction pursuant to Section 15B of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). In particular, Section 15B(c)(1) prohibits dealers from effecting transactions in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, a municipal security in contravention of any Board rule. Thus, since enactment of Section 15B and the creation of the Board in the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 (the "Securities Acts Amendments"), a transaction effected by a dealer in a municipal security must be effected in conformity with Board rules.

        In the March Notice, the Board reviewed two types of state or local governmental programs involving investment interests in which dealers may effect transactions: pooled investment funds under trusts established by state or local governmental entities ("local government pools")⁽²⁾ and higher education savings plan trusts established by states ("higher education trusts").⁽³⁾ These programs had been brought to the Board's attention by staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). In response to a Board inquiry as to the SEC's position on whether interests in such programs were municipal securities, SEC staff stated that "at least some interests in local government pools and higher education trusts may be, depending on the facts and circumstances, 'municipal securities' for purposes of the Exchange Act."⁽⁴⁾

        Board rules do not apply to any interest in a local government pool or higher education trust that is not a municipal security. In addition, Board rules apply only to activities of dealers that effect municipal securities transactions. Thus, Board rules do not apply to an issuer of, or a non-dealer entity providing advice to issuers in regard to, municipal securities, including municipal fund securities. However, to the extent that interests in a local government pool or a higher education trust are municipal securities and dealers are effecting transactions in them, Board rules automatically govern such dealer transactions, without the necessity of further Board rulemaking^.(5) On several previous occasions, the Board has alerted the industry to the applicability of Board rules to (and has proposed rule changes to accommodate) transactions in new forms of municipal securities or pre-existing forms of securities that many in the industry had not previously recognized as municipal securities.⁽⁶⁾

        A municipal fund security is defined as a municipal security issued by an issuer that, but for Section 2(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "Investment Company Act"),⁽⁷⁾ would constitute an investment company under that Act. Thus, Board rules on municipal fund securities would apply to interests in a state or local governmental trust, such as local government pools and higher education trusts,⁽⁸⁾ only if the following three conditions are met:

1. A dealer is engaging in transactions in such interests;
2. Such interests, in fact, constitute municipal securities; and
3. Such interests are issued by an issuer that, but for the exemption under Section 2(b) of the Investment Company Act, would be considered an investment company within the meaning of that Act.

        The Board understands that municipal fund securities may not have features typically associated with more traditional municipal securities. Instead, their features are similar to those of investment company securities.⁽⁹⁾ In the March Notice, the Board stated that, although its rules generally have been drafted to accommodate the characteristics of debt securities, it believes that most current rules can appropriately be applied to municipal fund securities. Nonetheless, the Board felt that certain rules should be amended to recognize the unique characteristics of municipal fund securities. The draft rule changes did not seek to extend the reach of Board rules, since the rules already apply to municipal fund securities, but sought to tailor certain Board rules to the nature of municipal fund securities.

DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS AND DRAFT RULE CHANGES
 

Authority of Board to Adopt Draft Rule Changes
 

        Comments Received. Some commentators state that the Board has no authority to regulate municipal fund securities, particularly local government pool interests.⁽¹⁰⁾ They state that such interests are not municipal securities under the Exchange Act. They argue that the term "municipal securities" is limited to debt obligations of municipal issuers and that interests in local government pools represent equity interests in trust assets, not debt obligations.⁽¹¹⁾ Another commentator questions whether Congress intended that the Board regulate local government pools when it created the Board.

        Board Response. As previously stated, a security must first be a municipal security in order to be a municipal fund security. The draft rule changes would not, and existing Board rules do not, apply to local government pool or higher education trust interests that are not municipal securities. Thus, the Board does not overstep its authority by regulating dealer transactions in municipal fund securities since, by definition, regulation is limited to interests that are municipal securities.

        A firm wishing to determine if Board rules apply to services it provides to an issuer of local government pool or higher education trust interests may seek advice of counsel as to whether (1) such services constitute broker-dealer activities, or (2) such interests are municipal securities. It may seek comfort on counsel's opinion from SEC staff through the SEC's no-action procedure. If a non-dealer firm's activities do not constitute broker-dealer activities, the firm need not be a registered broker or dealer subject to Board rules, even if the interests are municipal securities.⁽¹²⁾ If the interests are not municipal securities, the dealer need not comply with Board rules; however, the dealer's activities may be subject to Exchange Act provisions and SEC and National Association of Securities Dealers ("NASD") rules, unless the interests otherwise qualify for an exemption (e.g., as exempted securities other than municipal securities) under the Exchange Act.

        Of course, the Board's rulemaking proposal is meaningful only if municipal fund securities, in fact, exist. As noted above, the Board sought comfort from SEC staff that local government pool and higher education trust interests are municipal securities. SEC staff replied that "at least some interests in local government pools and higher education trusts may be, depending on the facts and circumstances, 'municipal securities' for purposes of the Exchange Act."⁽¹³⁾ Although the Board is not empowered to determine whether a security is a municipal security within the meaning of Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act, the Board believes that, based on this SEC response as well as a close review of existing no-action letters and legislative history of the Securities Acts Amendments, the Exchange Act and the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"), as discussed below, at least some interests in local government pools and higher education trusts are municipal securities.

        For example, in agreeing not to recommend enforcement action in several no-action letters, SEC staff relied on opinions of counsel that interests in state or local governmental trusts were municipal securities under the Exchange Act.⁽¹⁴⁾ In one instance, SEC staff agreed not to recommend enforcement action if a dealer, in offering and selling interests in a higher education trust, were to comply with Board rules as they have been proposed to be amended in the March Notice, in lieu of complying with such rules as currently in effect.⁽¹⁵⁾ In another no-action letter, SEC staff agreed not to recommend enforcement action if dealers (1) sold interests in a higher education trust through persons qualified to sell investment company products but who did not meet the Board's professional qualification requirements⁽¹⁶⁾ and (2) complied with Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) through a continuing disclosure undertaking from a dealer affiliate, rather than from the issuer. In reaching this position, SEC staff noted that the higher education trust interests were "atypical municipal securities."⁽¹⁷⁾

        In other instances, SEC staff agreed not to recommend enforcement action if state entities and their employees sold higher education trust interests without registering as brokers.⁽¹⁸⁾ The applicants opined in these cases that the interests were municipal securities under the Exchange Act, thereby exempting the issuers from registering as brokers by virtue of the exemption for issuers of municipal securities set forth in Section 3(d).⁽¹⁹⁾ SEC staff also agreed not to recommend enforcement action if interests in a state trust were not registered under the Exchange Act, in reliance on an opinion that the exemption under Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act for exempted securities was available.⁽²⁰⁾

        SEC staff also has taken the position that non-debt securities may be municipal securities under the Exchange Act.⁽²¹⁾ In one case, SEC staff was unable to conclude that receipts/certificates evidencing developers' payments to a city of fees for the issuance of building permits could not be considered municipal securities under the Exchange Act.⁽²²⁾ SEC staff also has advised the Board that warrants sold by a municipal corporation entitling the holders to purchase other municipal securities of that corporation are themselves municipal securities under the Exchange Act.⁽²³⁾ Finally, in those cases in which SEC staff concluded that an "obligation" within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code would also constitute an "obligation" for purposes of Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act, SEC staff did not conclude that the failure of a security to be an obligation for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code would mean that such security was not a municipal security for purposes of the Exchange Act.⁽²⁴⁾ In these cases, SEC staff was not presented with the issue of whether a non-debt security could be a municipal security. As noted above, on the last two occasions when SEC staff was confronted with this issue, it concluded that a non-debt security may be a municipal security for purposes of the Exchange Act.⁽²⁵⁾

        A review of legislative history also suggests that the commentators' position that the term "municipal securities" in the Exchange Act excludes non-debt securities is not justified. The Senate report on the Securities Acts Amendments notes that the legislation created a definition of municipal securities in new Section 3(a)(29) that, for all relevant purposes, used the same language as in the original version of the definition of exempted securities in Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act.⁽²⁶⁾ It also states that no substantive changes in meaning would be effected by creating Section 3(a)(29).⁽²⁷⁾ Thus, the import of the term "municipal securities" must be viewed through the eyes of the original drafters of the Exchange Act in 1934 rather than the drafters of the Securities Acts Amendments in 1975.

        The purpose of including municipal securities in the definition of exempted securities in the Exchange Act was to provide an exemption from most provisions of that Act. Although commentators suggest that Board regulation of dealer transactions in non-debt securities of municipal issuers is inconsistent with the intent of the drafters of the Securities Acts Amendments, the appropriate inquiry is whether the drafters of the original Exchange Act would have intended that only debt securities of municipal issuers be exempted from most provisions of the Exchange Act. That is, would the drafters of the original Exchange Act have intended that non-debt securities of state or local governmental entities - had such securities existed at the time - be subject to the entire range of regulation of the Exchange Act applicable to other equity securities, including in some instances a requirement for registration of such securities with the SEC? A review of Congressional debates, committee reports and hearing testimony relating to enactment of the Securities Act and the Exchange Act reveals that, in spite of differences in statutory language, both Acts were expected to exempt the same universe of municipal securities.

        For example, the 1933 House report on the Securities Act speaks of exempted state and local government securities almost exclusively in terms of "obligations" and "bonds," not "securities."⁽²⁸⁾ The report explains the exemption set forth in Section 3(a) of the Securities Act as follows:

        Paragraph (2) exempts United States, Territorial and State obligations, or obligations of any political subdivision of these governmental units. The term "political subdivision" carries with it the exemption of such securities as county, town, or municipal obligations, as well as school district, drainage district, and levee district, and other similar bonds. The line drawn by the expression "political subdivision" corresponds generally with the line drawn by the courts as to what obligations of States, their units and instrumentalities created by them, are exempted from Federal taxation. By such delineation, any constitutional difficulties that might arise with reference to the inclusion of State and municipal obligations are avoided.⁽²⁹⁾

        Furthermore, during Congressional debate and hearings held in 1933 on the Securities Act, members of Congress used the terms "securities," "obligations" and "bonds" interchangeably.⁽³⁰⁾ Thus, although the statutory language in the Securities Act uses only the term "securities" and not the term "obligations" when describing municipal securities, there is no suggestion that Congress had anything in mind when enacting the Securities Act other than the tax-exempt bonds and other debt obligations of state and local governments that are customarily associated with municipal securities. Nonetheless, the commentators all have agreed that local government pool and higher education trust interests are exempt from the Securities Act and none has suggested that this exemption is limited to tax-exempt debt obligations.

        The initial Exchange Act draft introduced in Congress the following year exempted federal government securities but not municipal securities. Members of Congress expressed concern regarding the appropriateness of federal regulation of state and local governmental matters,⁽³¹⁾ the burden that Exchange Act provisions would place on state and local issuers⁽³²⁾ and the relative detriment in the market to municipal securities if they were not exempted but federal government securities were exempted.⁽³³⁾ Some discussion focused on whether a distinction should be drawn between defaulted and non-defaulted municipal securities.⁽³⁴⁾ Ultimately, the language that was added to the Exchange Act to exempt municipal securities made no such distinction but instead was drafted in non-exclusive terms that paralleled the language used in the Exchange Act to describe federal government securities. This language also employed the same type of terminology that the drafters of the Securities Act had used in the legislative history to explain the statutory language on municipal securities in that Act.⁽³⁵⁾ Legislative history does not reflect any intent or understanding that the municipal securities contemplated in the Exchange Act were any different than those that were already exempted under the Securities Act.⁽³⁶⁾ It would be inconsistent with legislative intent to limit the exemption under the Exchange Act solely to debt securities of state and local governments without similarly limiting the reach of the exemption provided in the Securities Act.

        Finally, in using the same term - "municipal securities" - that sets out the exemption from most Exchange Act provisions to also delineate the Board's rulemaking authority under Section 15B of the Exchange Act, Congress elected in the Securities Acts Amendments to grant the Board jurisdiction over dealer transactions in the identical universe of securities as were otherwise exempted from the Exchange Act as municipal securities. Thus, even if Congress did not have interests in local government pools or higher education trusts in mind when enacting the Securities Acts Amendments, it did have a specific intent that the Board would have authority over dealer transactions in any security that would constitute an exempted security by virtue of being a municipal security. In creating the Board, the Senate report on the Securities Acts Amendments stated that it would not "be desirable to restrict the Board's authority by a specific enumeration of subject matters. The ingenuity of the financial community and the impossibility of anticipating all future circumstances are obvious reasons for allowing the Board a measure of flexibility in laying down the rules for the municipal securities industry."⁽³⁷⁾ The fact that certain types of instruments (such as non-debt securities of state or local governments) were essentially non-existent at the time of enactment of the Securities Acts Amendments did not, in the minds of the drafters, mean that regulations relating to newly created instruments would not be within the Board's power.⁽³⁸⁾

Appropriateness of Regulating Dealer Transactions in Municipal Fund Securities
 

        Comments Received. Commentators state that, even if the Board has authority to adopt the draft rule changes, the Board should refrain from doing so. They argue that no need has been demonstrated for regulation to protect investors or the public interest in connection with local government pool interests. They state that investors are local governments and not the typical public investor in municipal securities.⁽³⁹⁾ They also argue that offerings of interests in local government pools do not pose risks that are similar to those identified in the legislative history of the Securities Acts Amendments.⁽⁴⁰⁾ One commentator argues that safeguards already exist to provide investor protections comparable to those in the draft rule changes.⁽⁴¹⁾

        Some commentators state that Board rulemaking would adversely impact state and local governments. In particular, they believe that underwriting assessments would be passed on, directly or indirectly, to issuers and issuers would face additional administrative burdens as a result of the application of Board rules. They note that any increased costs to issuers likely would be passed on to investors in the form of lower returns on their investments.

        Commentators also state that interests in local government pools involve transactions between the state or local government-sponsored pools and participating local governmental entities of that same state. One commentator believes that Board rulemaking would be inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment and transactions in local government pool interests do not constitute interstate commerce. Furthermore, noting that the Exchange Act does not require registration of a broker or dealer whose business is exclusively intrastate, this commentator suggests that the Board "follow Congress's restraint in approaching intrastate transactions in securities." Finally, it states that regulation of transactions in these interests would "improperly intrude on state sovereignty" by indirectly regulating states by mandating actions by their agents.

        Board Response. As the Board has previously observed, the current rulemaking proposal would not subject dealer transactions in municipal fund securities to Board rules but instead would make certain Board rules, to which such transactions are already subject, better accommodate the nature of these securities. Making Board rules fit the characteristics of municipal fund securities is an appropriate Board undertaking. Also, Board rules do not govern the actions of issuers; instead, they impose standards on dealers effecting transactions in the securities of such issuers. In establishing the Board, Congress determined that dealer regulation was the appropriate manner of providing investor protection in the municipal securities market while maintaining the existing exemption for issuers.⁽⁴²⁾

        The definition of customer under rule D-9 includes issuers, except in connection with sales of an issuer's new issue municipal securities, and therefore Board rules contemplate that governmental entities acting as investors are entitled to the protections afforded by such rules to all customers.⁽⁴³⁾ The Board understands that local government pools exist in nearly every state and that, in many states, more than one pool may be available to a local government.⁽⁴⁴⁾ One market observer states that these pools "can differ in their level of risk taking, internal oversight, shareholder services, and external reporting."⁽⁴⁵⁾ Although a number of pools have been rated, the vast majority remain unrated. Most local government pools appear to be designed to maintain, as nearly as possible, a constant net asset value (similar to regulated money market mutual funds), but some operate as variable net asset value pools that do not seek to maintain a constant share value. Furthermore, a number of local government pools have experienced financial difficulties.⁽⁴⁶⁾ These factors suggest that investor protection issues may be raised in connection with the sale by dealers of interests in local government pools.⁽⁴⁷⁾ The Board believes that investor protection issues also may arise with respect to sales by dealers of interests in higher education trusts.⁽⁴⁸⁾ For example, the Board believes that dealers have suitability obligations if they recommend a transaction in a local government pool or higher education trust interest to a local government or an individual, respectively, if such interest constitutes a municipal security.⁽⁴⁹⁾

        Commentators describe local government pools as being operated "consistent with" the federal securities laws applicable to investment companies and managed and administered in a manner "similar" to money market mutual funds, "where practicable." These comments imply that many programs in fact deviate to some degree from their voluntary compliance with existing federal regulations that would be applicable to these programs if they were not operated by state or local governmental entities. However, the Board notes that its proposed rulemaking would not impose requirements on issuers and in fact has been drafted with the understanding that dealers may be effecting transactions in securities that are similar, but not identical, to investment company securities. In that respect, the Board believes that its proposed rulemaking is more suitable for dealers effecting transactions in municipal fund securities than existing SEC and NASD rules applicable to dealer transactions in investment company securities since some such rules impose obligations on dealers based on the assumption that issuers, as registered investment companies, must comply with federal investment company laws and regulations. Thus, a dealer might have difficulty in complying with the letter of existing regulations relating to securities of registered investment companies where the issuer of a local government pool or higher education trust interest has chosen not to voluntarily comply with the provisions that would be obligatory if it were a registered investment company. As is the case with all existing Board rules, the current rulemaking proposal recognizes that issuers, as largely unregulated entities, may act in widely divergent manners. Thus, obligations placed on dealers should be sufficiently flexible to permit dealers to act in a lawful manner in view of this wide divergence of circumstances while maintaining an adequate level of customer protection.

        The Board believes that state regulation, federal rules applicable to investment advisors and Governmental Accounting Standards Board statements, although providing important protections in the areas governed by such rules and standards, do not serve as a substitute for regulation tailored specifically toward dealer activities in municipal fund securities. Furthermore, the Board believes that voluntary adherence to the substance of existing rules applicable to investment company securities and/or other equity securities provides inadequate protection to investors since dealers are free to deviate from these rules in any manner and at any time they choose without any apparent legal consequence. The existence of these collateral safeguards do not justify the Board refraining from making its rules more rational with respect to such securities.

        Finally, with regard to the argument that interests in local government pools are strictly intrastate in nature and therefore are not the appropriate subject of federal regulation, Board rules currently do not apply to any entity that, by virtue of the fact that its business is exclusively intrastate, is not registered as a broker or dealer under Section 15 of the Exchange Act. Beyond this, the federal securities laws provide that, once an entity engages in some interstate activities that require it to register under the Exchange Act, the broker-dealer rules applicable to such entity apply to both its interstate and intrastate transactions. We believe that Congress has made clear its policy determination that intrastate transactions of registered broker-dealers should be subject to broker-dealer regulation.⁽⁵⁰⁾
 

Applicability of Existing Board Rules to Transactions in Municipal Fund Securities Effected Prior to Effectiveness of Draft Rule Changes

        Comments Received. Two commentators argue that, to the extent that the Board may have authority to regulate dealer transactions in these interests, existing Board rules relating to municipal securities do not currently apply to transactions in local government pool interests. They state that existing Board rules were never intended to apply to securities other than debt obligations, as evidenced by the Board's statement in the March Notice that its rules "generally have been drafted to accommodate the characteristics of debt obligations and not investment interests such as municipal fund securities." As a result, they believe that any interpretation by the Board to the effect that existing rules apply to municipal fund securities can only be effected through the rulemaking process.

        Board Response. As stated above, the Board believes that Section 15B(c)(1) of the Exchange Act automatically subjects any dealer transactions in municipal fund securities to Board rules. This is true regardless of whether dealers effecting such transactions are aware that municipal fund securities are, in fact, municipal securities. It is incumbent upon dealers to be aware of the nature of the securities in which they undertake transactions and it is not a defense against the applicability of Board rules that the dealer did not know that the securities were municipal securities. Thus, the Board's statement that any interest in a local government pool or a higher education trust that is a municipal security currently is subject to Board rules was a statement of fact rather than an interpretation.⁽⁵¹⁾

        The Board recognizes, however, that, prior to publication of the March Notice, it may not have been readily apparent to the vast majority of dealers, as well as to most regulatory agencies, that interests that constitute municipal fund securities were municipal securities. Although the Board does not have authority to direct enforcement of its rules, it is statutorily charged with determining the best means of protecting investors and the public interest in regard to dealer transactions in municipal securities. As such, the Board believes that, under the unique circumstances relating to municipal fund securities, enforcement of its rules with regard to transactions in such securities that occurred prior to the industry having been put on notice of their applicability would serve no substantial investor protection purpose, absent extraordinary circumstances or a showing of investor harm resulting from a material departure from standards of fairness generally applicable under the federal securities laws.
 

Structure of Draft Rule Changes

        Comments Received. Some commentators express concern that the Board's rulemaking proposal contemplates amendments to existing rules rather than creation of a separate body of regulations. One commentator states that the "attempt to fit a totally new product or way of doing business into existing regulation that was created to address fundamentally different products and a different market structure is fraught with danger." Commentators also state that transactions in municipal fund securities should be regulated in a manner as similar as possible to the existing regulatory scheme for investment company securities.

        Board Response. The Board reviewed its existing rules and compared them, where relevant, to rules that govern dealer transactions in securities of registered investment companies. In many respects, Board rules are functionally identical to such existing rules. In other cases, existing SEC or NASD rules provide a more appropriate method of regulating municipal fund securities and the Board sought to modify its rules in a manner that was consistent with such other rules. In yet other cases, the regulation of the structure and marketing of securities of registered investment companies has been effected by regulations applicable to issuers, an approach which the Board cannot, and does not seek to, duplicate. Finally, certain NASD and SEC rule provisions arise out of specific Congressional authorization in the Investment Company Act applicable to securities of registered investment companies but not applicable to unregistered municipal fund securities.

        Under the circumstances, the Board believes that its approach is appropriate. The Board sought industry comment on the draft rule changes and, in those circumstances where commentators noted specific shortcomings, the Board considered the merits of the comments and made revisions where appropriate. The Board was disappointed that several commentators chose to comment almost exclusively on jurisdictional issues and hopes that they will now address the details of, and any concerns raised by, the revised draft rule changes.

Specific Rule Provisions
 

        Rule A-13, on Underwriting Assessments. In the March Notice, the Board states that sales of municipal fund securities are made in a primary offering subject to the underwriting assessment in rule A-13.⁽⁵²⁾ The draft amendment to rule A-13 would have provided for the imposition of an underwriting assessment with respect to such sales of municipal fund securities.

        Most commentators express concern regarding the assessment of underwriting fees on sales of municipal fund securities. Some suggest that such sales should be exempted from the underwriting assessment. They state that the fee structure for dealers involved in the distribution of municipal fund securities is more like an administrative fee than an underwriting discount or commission since these dealers do not undertake underwriting risks. As a result, they state that fees generally are fixed and are low relative to traditional underwriting fees. Because of these small margins, a number of commentators state that underwriting assessments would be passed on to issuers and therefore would represent a financial burden on the issuers' programs.⁽⁵³⁾

        Some commentators state that, given the volume of investments and redemptions in many municipal fund securities programs,⁽⁵⁴⁾ the level of fees generated by the Board from underwriting assessments would be disproportionate to the resulting regulatory costs. One commentator states that, if assessments are imposed, they should be at a significantly lower level than the assessments charged in connection with more traditional municipal securities offerings.⁽⁵⁵⁾

        Based on the comments, the Board has revised the draft amendment to rule A-13 to exempt sales of municipal fund securities from the underwriting assessment. The continuous nature of offerings in municipal fund securities, the programmatic nature of most customer investments and the heightened potential that underwriting assessments could create significant financial burdens on issuers to their customers' detriment justify caution in imposing the underwriting assessment. The Board also wishes to make clear that it does not intend to seek payment of any previously accrued underwriting assessments that may technically be due and owing on prior sales of municipal fund securities.

        Draft Rule D-12, on Definition of "Municipal Fund Security". Draft rule D-12 defines municipal fund security as a municipal security that would be an investment company security under the Investment Company Act but for the fact that the issuer is a state or local governmental entity or instrumentality. For a security to constitute a municipal fund security, the security must first constitute a municipal security. The draft amendments would not apply to any local government pool or higher education trust interest that is not a municipal security. The Board has not revised the draft definition.⁽⁵⁶⁾

        Rule G-3, on Professional Qualifications. The draft amendment to rule G-3 would permit an associated person qualified as an investment company limited representative to effect transactions in municipal fund securities (but no other municipal securities).⁽⁵⁷⁾ A dealer must have municipal securities principals as required under rule G-3(b), even if the dealer's only municipal securities transactions are sales of municipal fund securities. The Board has not revised this draft amendment.⁽⁵⁸⁾

        Rule G-8, on Recordkeeping. The draft amendment to rule G-8 would recognize that municipal fund securities do not have par values, dollar prices, yields and accrued interest and that some investment company limited representatives would be permitted to effect transactions in municipal fund securities. The Board did not receive comments on its draft amendment to rule G-8. However, in conjunction with revisions to the draft amendment to rule G-15 described below, the Board is proposing an additional revision to rule G-8 to require that dealers retain copies of all periodic statements delivered to customers in lieu of individual confirmations.

        Rule G-14, on Transaction Reporting. The draft rule change would make a technical modification in rule G-14(b)(i) to make clear that certain types of municipal securities transactions may be excluded from transaction reporting as provided in the Rule G-14 Transaction Reporting Procedures. In the Procedures, the language change would expressly exempt any transaction in municipal fund securities from the customer transaction reporting system.⁽⁵⁹⁾ The Board did not receive comments on, and has not revised, these draft amendments.

        Rule G-15, on Customer Confirmations. The draft amendment to rule G-15 would effect changes relating to the concepts of par value, yield, dollar price, maturity date and interest, none of which would appropriately apply to a municipal fund security. Thus, on a confirmation of a municipal fund securities transaction, a dealer would use the purchase or sale price of the securities (as appropriate) rather than par value and would omit yield, dollar price, accrued interest, extended principal, maturity date and interest rate. Dealers selling municipal fund securities would be required to include the denomination or purchase price of each share or unit as well as the number of shares or units to be delivered. Confirmations of municipal fund securities transactions would require a disclosure to the effect that a deferred commission or other charge may be imposed upon redemption, if applicable.⁽⁶⁰⁾ The amendment also would make clear that dealers must confirm redemptions of municipal fund securities. Finally, the amendment would permit dealers to use quarterly statements, rather than transaction-by-transaction confirmations, if customers are purchasing such securities in an agreed amount on a periodic basis, in a manner similar to the periodic reporting provision under Exchange Act Rule 10b-10.

The Board received a number of technical comments on various provisions in rule G-15:⁽⁶¹⁾

        Periodic Statements - Rule G-15(a)(vi)(G) and (a)(viii) - Some commentators state that the draft amendments would require individual confirmations for each transaction in local government pool interests and suggest that dealers be permitted to use monthly statements.⁽⁶²⁾ Another commentator states that transactions in higher education trust interests that are not effected pursuant to a periodic plan should nonetheless qualify for periodic statements in lieu of individual transaction confirmations.⁽⁶³⁾

        The Board has decided to revise the draft amendment to rule G-15 to provide that information regarding transactions in municipal fund securities effected in connection with a program that does not provide for periodic purchases or redemptions of municipal fund securities may be disclosed to customers on a monthly statement in lieu of transaction confirmations.⁽⁶⁴⁾ With respect to natural persons who participate in a non-periodic program, this monthly reporting would require the written consent of such individual or of the issuer. If the issuer directs that monthly statements be used in lieu of transaction confirmations, the revised draft amendment to rule G-15(a)(viii) would permit dealers effecting transactions in such municipal fund securities to use monthly statements without obtaining the consent of any customers. In addition, the draft amendment has been revised to eliminate the requirement that customers participating in a group plan consent to the use of periodic statements in lieu of transaction confirmations.⁽⁶⁵⁾

        Rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(7) - In order to avoid the potential for ambiguity, this subparagraph has been revised to eliminate reference to denomination and to refer solely to the share purchase price.⁽⁶⁶⁾

        Rule G-15(a)(i)(C) and (a)(i)(B)(1) - A commentator notes that the Board did not provide guidance regarding the securities descriptive information required to be included under paragraph (a)(i)(C) and states that such paragraph should not be applicable to municipal fund securities. In the alternative, it suggests that confirmations should not be required to state that municipal fund securities are unrated.⁽⁶⁷⁾ The Board has revised the draft amendment to (i) provide that a confirmation of a municipal fund security transaction need not show the information required under paragraph (a)(i)(C) other than whether the security is puttable and (ii) include a requirement in subparagraph (a)(i)(B)(1) that the confirmation include the name used by the issuer to identify the security and, to the extent necessary to differentiate the security from other municipal fund securities of the issuer, any separate program series, portfolio or fund designation. A statement to the effect that the security is unrated would not be required.

        Rule G-21, on Advertising. The Board did not propose amending rule G-21 in the March Notice. One commentator states that this rule should be revised to eliminate references to price and yield for purposes of municipal fund securities. Section (d)(i) provides that an advertisement for new issue municipal securities may show the initial reoffering price or yield, even if they have changed, so long as the date of sale is shown. In addition, it provides that if the price or yield shown in the advertisement is other than the initial price or yield, the price or yield shown must have been accurate at the time the advertisement was submitted for publication. The Board believes that these provisions do not unnecessarily restrict the manner in which municipal fund securities may be advertised nor do they mandate that an advertisement for a municipal fund security specify a price or yield.⁽⁶⁸⁾ Therefore, no change has been proposed to rule G-21.

        Rule G-26, on Customer Account Transfers. The draft amendment to rule G-26 amends the definition of "nontransferable asset" to reflect the fact that the issuer of municipal fund securities may limit which dealers may carry accounts for customers in such securities. The Board did not receive comments on, and has not revised, this draft amendment.

        Rule G-32, on New Issue Disclosures. No amendments to rule G-32 were proposed in the March Notice. However, the Board stated that municipal fund securities sold in a primary offering would constitute new issue municipal securities for purposes of rule G-32 so long as the securities are in the underwriting period. Since the Board understands that issuers of municipal fund securities are continuously issuing and delivering the securities as customers make purchases, the Board believes that municipal fund securities would remain in their underwriting period so long as such issuance and delivery continues.⁽⁶⁹⁾ Thus, a dealer effecting a transaction in a municipal fund security would be required to deliver to the customer the official statement, if one exists, by settlement of the transaction. However, in the case of a customer purchasing such securities who is a repeat purchaser, no new delivery of the official statement would be required so long as the customer has previously received it in connection with a prior purchase and the official statement has not been changed from the one previously delivered to that customer.⁽⁷⁰⁾

        One commentator expresses concern regarding the timing requirement of rule G-32 in the limited circumstances where a revision has just been made to the official statement and a customer that participates in a periodic plan makes an automatic purchase of additional shares of municipal fund securities. In spite of the best efforts of the dealer and the issuer, it may be impossible for the revised official statement to be delivered to the customer by settlement. The commentator suggests that, under these circumstances, the timing requirement under rule G-32 should be based on the sending rather than the delivery of the official statement.

        The Board is proposing a draft amendment to rule G-32 that would permit a dealer to sell, pursuant to a periodic plan, a municipal fund security to a customer who has previously received the official statement so long as it sends to the customer a copy of any new, supplemented, amended or stickered official statement promptly upon receipt from the issuer. The draft amendment also would except municipal fund securities for which periodic statements in lieu of transaction confirmations are provided from the requirement that information on the underwriting arrangements (which information would be limited to the fees paid to the dealer by the issuer) be provided to customers by settlement so long as such information is disclosed at least annually and information on any fee changes paid by the issuer to the dealer be sent to customers simultaneously with or prior to the sending of the next periodic statement.

        Rule G-33, on Calculations. The Board did not propose amending rule G-33 in the March Notice. One commentator states that this rule should be revised to eliminate references to par value, yield dollar price, maturity date and interest for purposes of municipal fund securities. By its terms, rule G-33 applies only to municipal securities that bear interest or are sold at a discount. Since municipal fund securities do not bear interest and are not sold at a discount, rule G-33 would by its nature not apply. Therefore, no change has been made to rule G-33.

        Rule G-34, on CUSIP Numbers and Depository Eligibility. The draft amendments would exempt municipal fund securities from the requirements of rule G-34 since no secondary market is expected to develop.⁽⁷¹⁾ The Board did not receive comments on, and has not revised, this draft amendment.

        Rule G-36, on Delivery of Official Statements and Form G-36(OS) to the Board. The Board did not propose amending rule G-36 in the March Notice but did state that, consistent with SEC staff's view regarding the sale in primary offerings of municipal fund securities, dealers acting as underwriters in primary offerings of municipal fund securities would be subject to the requirements of rule G-36. Thus, unless such primary offering falls within one of the stated exemptions in Rule 15c2-12, the Board expects that the dealer would receive a final official statement from the issuer or its agent under its contractual agreement entered into pursuant to Rule 15c2-12(b)(3). Such official statement should be received from the issuer in sufficient time for the dealer to send the official statement, together with Form G-36(OS), to the Board within one business day of receipt but no later than 10 business days after any final agreement to purchase, offer, or sell the municipal fund securities.⁽⁷²⁾ Since municipal fund securities remain in their underwriting period so long as they continue to be sold and delivered, the dealer would remain obligated under rule G-36(d) to send to the Board, within one business day of receipt, any amendments made to the official statement during such extended underwriting period.⁽⁷³⁾ No change has been made to rule G-36.

        Rule G-37, on Political Contributions and Prohibitions on Municipal Securities Business, and Rule G-38, on Consultants. The Board did not propose amending rules G-37 and G-38 in the March Notice but did reminded dealers that the definition of municipal securities business under such rules includes the purchase of a primary offering from the issuer on other than a competitive bid basis or the offer or sale of a primary offering on behalf of any issuer. Thus, a dealer's transactions in municipal fund securities may impact upon such dealer's obligations under rules G-37 and G-38. No changes have been made to rules G-37 and G-38.

* * * * *

Comments from all interested parties are welcome. Comments should be submitted no later than November 1, 1999, and may be directed to Ernesto A. Lanza, Associate General Counsel. Written comments will be available for public inspection.

August 27, 1999

TEXT OF DRAFT AMENDMENTS⁽⁷⁴⁾

Rule A-13. Underwriting and Transaction Assessments for Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers

(a) Underwriting Assessments - Scope. Each broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer shall pay to the Board an underwriting fee as set forth in section (b) for all municipal securities purchased from an issuer by or through such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, whether acting as principal or agent, as part of a primary offering, provided that section (b) of this rule shall not apply to a primary offering of securities if all such securities in the primary offering:

        (i)-(ii) No change.

        (iii) at the option of the holder thereof, may be tendered to an issuer of such securities or its designated agent for redemption or purchase at par value or more at least as frequently as every nine months until maturity, earlier redemption, or purchase by an issuer or its designated agent; or

        (iv) have authorized denominations of $100,000 or more and are sold to no more than thirty-five persons each of whom the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer reasonably believes: (A) has the knowledge and experience necessary to evaluate the merits and risks of the investment; and (B) is not purchasing for more than one account, with a view toward distributing the securities; or

        (v) constitute municipal fund securities.

If a syndicate or similar account has been formed for the purchase of the securities, the underwriting fee shall be paid by the managing underwriter on behalf of each participant in the syndicate or similar account.

(b)-(f) No change.
 

Rule D-12. "Municipal Fund Security"

The term "municipal fund security" shall mean a municipal security issued by an issuer that, but for the application of Section 2(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, would constitute an investment company within the meaning of Section 3 of the Investment Company Act of 1940.

Rule G-3. Classification of Principals and Representatives; Numerical Requirements; Testing; Continuing Education Requirements

No broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer or person who is a municipal securities representative, municipal securities principal, municipal securities sales principal or financial and operations principal (as hereafter defined) shall be qualified for purposes of rule G-2 unless such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer or person meets the requirements of this rule.

(a) Municipal Securities Representative.

        (i) No change.

        (ii) Qualification Requirements.

        (A)-(B) No change.

        (C) The requirements of subparagraph (a)(ii)(A) of this rule shall not apply to any person who is duly qualified as a limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products by reason of having taken and passed the Limited Representative - Investment Company and Variable Contracts Products Examination, but only if such person's activities with respect to municipal securities described in paragraph (a)(i) of this rule are limited solely to municipal fund securities.

        (D) Any person who ceases to be associated with a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (whether as a municipal securities representative or otherwise) for two or more years at any time after having qualified as a municipal securities representative in accordance with subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A), (B) or (C) or (B) shall again meet the requirements of subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A), (B) or (C) or (B) prior to being qualified as a municipal securities representative.

        (iii) Apprenticeship.

        (A) Any person who first becomes associated with a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer in a representative capacity (whether as a municipal securities representative, or general securities representative or limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products) without having previously qualified as a municipal securities representative, or general securities representative or limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products shall be permitted to function in a representative capacity without qualifying pursuant to subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A), (B) or (C) or (B) for a period of at least 90 days following the date such person becomes associated with a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, provided, however, that such person shall not transact business with any member of the public with respect to, or be compensated for transactions in, municipal securities during such 90 day period, regardless of such person's having qualified in accordance with the examination requirements of this rule. A person subject to the requirements of this paragraph (a)(iii) shall in no event continue to perform any of the functions of a municipal securities representative after 180 days following the commencement of such person's association with such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, unless such person qualifies as a municipal securities representative pursuant to subparagraphs (a)(ii)(A), (B) or (C) or (B).

        (B) Prior experience, of at least 90 days, as a general securities representative, limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products mutual fund salesperson or limited representative - government securities representative, will meet the requirements of this paragraph (a)(iii).

(b)-(h) No change.
 

Rule G-8. Books and Records to be Made by Brokers, Dealers and Municipal Securities Dealers

(a) Description of Books and Records Required to be Made. Except as otherwise specifically indicated in this rule, every broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer shall make and keep current the following books and records, to the extent applicable to the business of such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer:

        (i) Records of Original Entry. "Blotters" or other records of original entry containing an itemized daily record of all purchases and sales of municipal securities, all receipts and deliveries of municipal securities (including certificate numbers and, if the securities are in registered form, an indication to such effect), all receipts and disbursement of cash with respect to transactions in municipal securities, all other debits and credits pertaining to transactions in municipal securities, and in the case of brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers other than bank dealers, all other cash receipts and disbursements if not contained in the records required by any other provision of this rule. The records of original entry shall show the name or other designation of the account for which each such transaction was effected (whether effected for the account of such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, the account of a customer, or otherwise), the description of the securities, the aggregate par value of the securities, the dollar price or yield and aggregate purchase or sale price of the securities, accrued interest, the trade date, and the name or other designation of the person from whom purchased or received or to whom sold or delivered. With respect to accrued interest and information relating to "when issued" transactions which may not be available at the time a transaction is effected, entries setting forth such information shall be made promptly as such information becomes available. Dollar price, yield and accrued interest relating to any transaction shall be required to be shown only to the extent required to be included in the confirmation delivered by the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer in connection with such transaction under rule G-12 or rule G-15.

        (ii)-(viii) No change.

        (ix) Copies of Confirmations, Periodic Statements and Certain Other Notices to Customers. A copy of all confirmations of purchase or sale of municipal securities, of all periodic written statements disclosing purchases, sales or redemptions of municipal fund securities pursuant to rule G-15(a)(viii) and, in the case of a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, of all other notices sent to customers concerning debits and credits to customer accounts or, in the case of a bank dealer, notices of debits and credits for municipal securities, cash and other items with respect to transactions in municipal securities.

        (x) No change.

        (xi) Customer Account Information. A record for each customer, other than an institutional account, setting forth the following information to the extent applicable to such customer:

        (A)-(G) No change.

        (H) signature of municipal securities representative, and general securities representative or limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products introducing the account and signature of a municipal securities principal, municipal securities sales principal or general securities principal indicating acceptance of the account;

        (I)-(K) No change.

For purposes of this subparagraph, the terms "general securities representative," and "general securities principal" and "limited representative - investment company and variable contracts products" shall mean such persons as so defined by the rules of a national securities exchange or registered securities association. For purposes of this subparagraph, the term "institutional account" shall mean the account of (i) a bank, savings and loan association, insurance company, or registered investment company; (ii) an investment adviser registered either with the Commission under Section 203 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 or with a state securities commission (or any agency or office performing like functions); or (iii) any other entity (whether a natural person, corporation, partnership, trust, or otherwise) with total assets of at least $50 million. Anything in this subparagraph to the contrary notwithstanding, every broker, dealer and municipal securities dealer shall maintain a record of the information required by items (A), (C), (F), (H), (I) and (K) of this subparagraph with respect to each customer which is an institutional account.

        (xii)-(xix) No change.

(b)-(f) No change.

(g) Price substituted for par value of municipal fund securities. For purposes of this rule, each reference to the term "par value," when applied to a municipal fund security, shall be substituted with (i) in the case of a purchase of a municipal fund security by a customer, the purchase price paid by the customer, exclusive of any commission, and (ii) in the case of a sale or tender for redemption of a municipal fund security by a customer, the sale price or redemption amount paid to the customer, exclusive of any commission or other charge imposed upon redemption or sale.
 

Rule G-14. Reports of Sales or Purchases

(a) No change.

(b) Transactions Reporting Requirements.

        (i) Each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall report to the Board or its designee information about its transactions in municipal securities to the extent required by, and using the formats and within the timeframes specified in, Rule G-14 Transaction Reporting Procedures. Transaction information collected by the Board under this rule will be used to make public reports of market activity and prices and to assess transaction fees. The transaction information will be made available by the Board to the Commission, securities associations registered under Section 15A of the Act and other appropriate regulatory agencies defined in Section 3(a)(34)(A) of the Act to assist in the inspection for compliance with and the enforcement of Board rules.

        (ii)-(iii) No change.
 

Rule G-14 Transaction Reporting Procedures

(a) No change.

(b) Customer Transactions.

        (i)-(ii) No change.

        (iii) The following transactions shall not be required to be reported under this section (b):

        (A) A a transaction in a municipal security that is ineligible for assignment of a CUSIP number by the Board or its designee; and shall not be required to be reported under this section (b).

        (B) a transaction in a municipal fund security.

        (iv) No change.

Rule G-15. Confirmation, Clearance and Settlement of Transactions with Customers

(a) Customer Confirmations

        (i) At or before the completion of a transaction in municipal securities with or for the account of a customer, each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall give or send to the customer a written confirmation that complies with the requirements of this paragraph (i):

        (A) Transaction information. The confirmation shall include information regarding the terms of the transaction as set forth in this subparagraph (A):

        (1)-(2) No change.

        (3) Par value. The par value of the securities shall be shown, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (a) No change.

        (b) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, in place of par value, the confirmation shall show (i) in the case of a purchase of a municipal fund security by a customer, the total purchase price paid by the customer, exclusive of any commission, and (ii) in the case of a sale or tender for redemption of a municipal fund security by a customer, the total sale price or redemption amount paid to the customer, exclusive of any commission or other charge imposed upon redemption or sale.

        (4) No change.

        (5) Yield and dollar price. Yields and dollar prices shall be computed and shown in the following manner, subject to the exceptions stated in subparagraph (A)(5)(d) of this paragraph:

        (a)-(c) No change.

        (d) Notwithstanding the requirements noted in subparagraphs (A)(5)(a) through (c) of this paragraph, above:

        (i)-(v) No change.

        (vi) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, neither yield nor dollar price shall be shown.

        (6) Final Monies. The following information relating to the calculation and display of final monies shall be shown:

        (a) No change.

        (b) amount of accrued interest, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (i)-(ii) No change.

        (iii) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, no figure for accrued interest shall be shown;

        (c) if the securities pay interest on a current basis but are traded without interest, a notation of "flat;"

        (d) extended principal amount, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (i) No change.

        (ii) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, no extended principal amount shall be shown;

        (e)-(h) No change.

        (7) Delivery of securities. The following information regarding the delivery of securities shall be shown:

        (a) Securities other than bonds or municipal fund securities. For securities other than bonds or municipal fund securities, denominations to be delivered;

        (b) No change.

        (c) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, the purchase price, exclusive of commission, of each share or unit and the number of shares or units to be delivered;

        (d) Delivery instructions. Instructions, if available, regarding receipt or delivery of securities, and form of payment, if other than as usual and customary between the parties.

        (8) No change.

        (B) Securities identification information. The confirmation shall include a securities identification which includes, at a minimum:

        (1) the name of the issuer, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (a) For stripped coupon securities, the trade name and series designation assigned to the stripped coupon municipal security by the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer sponsoring the program must be shown;

        (b) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, the name used by the issuer to identify such securities and, to the extent necessary to differentiate the securities from other municipal fund securities of the issuer, any separate program series, portfolio or fund designation for such securities must be shown;

        (2) No change.

        (3) maturity date, if any, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (a) No change.

        (b) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, no maturity date shall be shown;

        (4) interest rate, if any, with special requirements for the following securities:

        (a)-(e) No change.

        (f) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, no interest rate shall be shown;

        (C) Securities descriptive information. The confirmation shall include descriptive information about the securities which includes, at a minimum:

        (1)-(4) No change.

        (5) Municipal fund securities. For municipal fund securities, the information described in clauses (1) through (4) of this subparagraph (C) is not required to be shown; provided, however, that if the municipal fund securities are puttable or otherwise redeemable by the customer, the confirmation shall include a designation to that effect.

        (D) Disclosure statements:

        (1)-(2) No change.

        (3) The confirmation for securities for which a deferred commission or other charge is imposed upon redemption or as a condition for payment of principal or interest thereon shall include a statement that the customer may be required to make a payment of such deferred commission or other charge upon redemption of such securities or as a condition for payment of principal or interest thereon, as appropriate, and that information concerning such deferred commission or other charge will be furnished upon written request.

        (ii)-(iii) No change.

        (iv) Confirmation to customers who tender put option bonds or municipal fund securities. A broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer that has an interest in put option bonds (including acting as remarketing agent) and accepts for tender put option bonds from a customer, or that has an interest in municipal fund securities (including acting as agent for the issuer thereof) and accepts for redemption municipal fund securities tendered by a customer, is engaging in a transaction in such municipal securities and shall send a confirmation under paragraph (i) of this section.

        (v) No change.

        (vi) Definitions. For purposes of this rule, the following terms shall have the following meanings:

        (A)-(F) No change.

        (G) The term "periodic municipal fund security plan" shall mean any written authorization or arrangement for a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, acting as agent, to purchase, sell or redeem for a customer or group of customers one or more specific municipal fund securities, in specific amounts (calculated in security units or dollars), at specific time intervals and setting forth the commissions or charges to be paid by the customer in connection therewith (or the manner of calculating them).

        (H) The term "non-periodic municipal fund security program" shall mean any written authorization or arrangement for a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, acting as agent, to purchase, sell or redeem for a customer or group of customers one or more specific municipal fund securities, setting forth the commissions or charges to be paid by the customer in connection therewith (or the manner of calculating them) and either (1) providing for the purchase, sale or redemption of such municipal fund securities at the direction of the customer or customers or (2) providing for the purchase, sale or redemption of such municipal fund securities at the direction of the customer or customers as well as authorizing the purchase, sale or redemption of such municipal fund securities in specific amounts (calculated in security units or dollars) at specific time intervals.

        (vii) Price substituted for par value of municipal fund securities. For purposes of this rule, each reference to the term "par value," when applied to a municipal fund security, shall be substituted with (i) in the case of a purchase of a municipal fund security by a customer, the purchase price paid by the customer, exclusive of any commission, and (ii) in the case of a sale or tender for redemption of a municipal fund security by a customer, the sale price or redemption amount paid to the customer, exclusive of any commission or other charge imposed upon redemption or sale.

        (viii) Alternative periodic reporting for certain transactions in municipal fund securities. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section (a), a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer may effect transactions in municipal fund securities with customers without giving or sending to such customer the written confirmation required by paragraph (i) of this section (a) at or before completion of each such transaction if:

        (A) such transactions are effected pursuant to a periodic municipal fund security plan or a non-periodic municipal fund security program; and

        (B) such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer gives or sends to such customer within five business days after the end of each quarterly period, in the case of a customer participating in a periodic municipal fund security plan, or each monthly period, in the case of a customer participating in a non-periodic municipal fund security program, a written statement disclosing, for each purchase, sale or redemption effected for or with, and each payment of investment earnings credited to or reinvested for, the account of such customer during the reporting period, the information required to be disclosed to customers pursuant to subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (i) of this section (a), with the information regarding each transaction clearly segregated; provided that it is permissible for the name and address of the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer and the customer to appear once at the beginning of the document; and

        (C) in the case of a periodic municipal fund security plan that consists of an arrangement involving a group of two or more customers and contemplating periodic purchases of municipal fund securities by each customer through a person designated by the group, such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer:

        (1) gives or sends to the designated person, at or before the completion of the transaction for the purchase of such municipal fund securities, a written notification of the receipt of the total amount paid by the group;

        (2) sends to anyone in the group who was a customer in the prior quarter and on whose behalf payment has not been received in the current quarter a quarterly written statement reflecting that a payment was not received on such customer's behalf; and

        (3) advises each customer in the group if a payment is not received from the designated person on behalf of the group within 10 days of a date certain specified in the arrangement for delivery of that payment by the designated person and either (a) thereafter sends to each customer the written confirmation described in paragraph (i) of this section (a) for the next three succeeding payments, or (b) includes in the quarterly statement referred to in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph (viii) each date certain specified in the arrangement for delivery of a payment by the designated person and each date on which a payment received from the designated person is applied to the purchase of municipal fund securities;

        (D) such customer is provided with prior notification in writing disclosing the intention to send the written information referred to in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph (viii) on a periodic basis in lieu of an immediate confirmation for each transaction; and

        (E) such customer has consented in writing to receipt of the written information referred to in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph (viii) on a periodic basis in lieu of an immediate confirmation for each transaction; provided, however, that such customer consent shall not be required if (1) the customer participates in a periodic municipal fund security plan described in subparagraph (C) of this paragraph (viii), (2) the customer is not a natural person and participates in a non-periodic municipal fund security program or (3) the customer is a natural person that participates in a non-periodic municipal fund security program and the issuer has consented in writing to the use by the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer of the periodic written information referred to in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph (viii) in lieu of an immediate confirmation for each transaction with each customer participating in the non-periodic municipal fund security program.

(b)-(e) No change.
 

Rule G-26. Customer Account Transfers

(a) Definitions. For purposes of this rule, the following terms have the following meanings:

        (i)-(ii) No change.

        (iii) The term "nontransferable asset" means an asset that is incapable of being transferred from the carrying party to the receiving party because (A) it is an issue in default for which the carrying party does not possess the proper denominations to effect delivery and no transfer agent is available to re-register the securities, or (B) it is a municipal fund security which the issuer requires to be held in an account carried by one or more specified brokers, dealers or municipal securities dealers that does not include the receiving party.

(b) No change.

(c) Transfer Instructions.

        (i) No change.

        (ii) If an account includes any nontransferable assets, the carrying party must request, in writing and prior to or at the time of validation of the transfer instruction, further instructions from the customer with respect to the disposition of such assets. Such request shall provide the customer with the following alternative methods of disposition of nontransferable assets, if applicable:

        (A) No change.

        (B) retention by the carrying party for the customer's benefit; or

        (C) in the case of a nontransferable asset described in section (a)(iii)(B), transfer to another broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer, if any, which the issuer has specified as being permitted to carry such asset.

(d)-(i) No change.
 

Rule G-32. Disclosures in Connection with New Issues

(a) Customer Disclosure Requirements. No broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall sell, whether as principal or agent, any new issue municipal securities to a customer unless such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer delivers to the customer no later than the settlement of the transaction:

        (i) a copy of the official statement in final form prepared by or on behalf of the issuer or, if an official statement in final form is not being prepared by or on behalf of the issuer, a written notice to that effect together with a copy of an official statement in preliminary form, if any; provided, however, that:

        (A) if a customer who participates in a periodic municipal fund security plan has previously received a copy of the official statement in final form in connection with the purchase of municipal fund securities under such plan, a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer may sell additional shares or units of the municipal fund securities under such plan to the customer if such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer sends to the customer a copy of any new, supplemented, amended or "stickered" official statement in final form, by first class mail or other equally prompt means, promptly upon receipt thereof; or

        (B) if an official statement in final form is being prepared for new issue municipal securities issued in a primary offering that qualifies for the exemption set forth in paragraph (iii) of section (d)(1) of Securities Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12, a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer may sell such new issue municipal securities to a customer if such broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer:

        (A)-(B) Renumbered as (1)-(2).

        (ii) in connection with a negotiated sale of new issue municipal securities, the following information concerning the underwriting arrangements:

        (A) the underwriting spread, if any;

        (B) the amount of any fee received by the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer as agent for the issuer in the distribution of the securities; provided, however, that if a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer selling municipal fund securities provides periodic statements to the customer pursuant to rule G-15(a)(viii) in lieu of individual transaction confirmations, this paragraph (ii)(B) shall be deemed to be satisfied if the broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer provides this information to the customer at least annually and provides information regarding any change in such fee on or prior to the sending of the next succeeding periodic statement to the customer; and

        (C) except with respect to an issue of municipal fund securities, the initial offering price for each maturity in the issue that is offered or to be offered in whole or in part by the underwriters, including maturities that are not reoffered.

(b) Inter-Dealer Disclosure Requirements. Every broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer shall send, upon request, the documents and information referred to in this section (a) to any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer to which it sells new issue municipal securities no later than the business day following the request or, if an official statement in final form is being prepared but has not been received from the issuer or its agent, no later than the business day following such receipt. Such items shall be sent by first call mail or other equally prompt means, unless the purchasing broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer arranges some other method of delivery and pays or agrees to pay for such delivery.

(b)-(c) Relettered as (c)-(d).
 

Rule G-34. CUSIP Numbers and New Issue Requirements

(a)-(b) No change.

(c) CUSIP Number Eligibility Exemptions. The provisions of this rule shall not apply to an issue of municipal securities (or for the purpose of section (b) any part of an outstanding maturity of an issue) which (i) does not meet the eligibility criteria for CUSIP number assignment or (ii) consists entirely of municipal fund securities.

ENDNOTES

1. See "Municipal Fund Securities," MSRB Reports, Vol. 19, No. 2 (April 1999) at 9.

2. The Board understands that local government pools are established by state or local governmental entities as trusts that serve as vehicles for the pooled investment of public moneys of participating governmental entities. Participants purchase interests in the trust and trust assets are invested in a manner consistent with the trust's stated investment objectives. Investors generally do not have a right to control investment of trust assets. See generally National Association of State Treasurers ("NAST"), Special Report: Local Government Investment Pools (July 1995) (the "NAST Report"); Standard & Poor's Fund Services, Local Government Investment Pools (May 1999) (the "S&P Report").

3. The Board understands that higher education trusts generally are established by states under section 529(b) of the Internal Revenue Code as "qualified state tuition programs" through which individuals make investments for the purpose of accumulating savings for qualifying higher education costs of beneficiaries. Individuals purchase interests in the trust and trust assets are invested in a manner consistent with the trust's stated investment objectives. Investors do not have a right to control investment of trust assets. See generally College Savings Plans Network, Special Report on State and College Savings Plans (1998) (the "CSPN Report").

4. Letter dated February 26, 1999 from Catherine McGuire, Chief Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, to Diane G. Klinke, General Counsel of the Board, in response to letter dated June 2, 1998 from Diane G. Klinke to Catherine McGuire, published as Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 032299033 (Feb. 26, 1999) (the "SEC Letter").

5. Dealers also should consider the applicability of Exchange Act Rule 15c2-12. SEC staff has stated:

[W]e note that Rule 15c2-12(f)(7) under the Exchange Act defines a "primary offering" as including an offering of municipal securities directly or indirectly by or on behalf of an issuer of such securities. Based upon an analysis of programs that have been brought to our attention, it appears that interests in local government pools or higher education trusts generally are offered only by direct purchase from the issuer. Accordingly, we would view those interests as having been sold in a "primary offering" as that term is defined in Rule 15c2-12. If a dealer is acting as an "underwriter" (as defined in Rule 15c2-12(f)(8)) in connection with that primary offering, the dealer may be subject to the requirements of Rule 15c2-12.

SEC Letter, supra note 4. Questions on Rule 15c2-12 should be directed to SEC staff.

6. See "Transactions in Municipal Collateralized Mortgage Obligations: Rule G-15," MSRB Reports, Vol. 12, No. 1 (April 1992) at 21; "Stripped Coupon Municipal Securities," MSRB Reports, Vol. 9, No. 1 (March 1989) at 3; "Taxable Securities," MSRB Reports, Vol. 6, No. 5 (Oct. 1986) at 5; "Tender Option Programs: SEC Response to Board Letter," MSRB Reports, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Feb. 1985) at 3; "Tax-Exempt Notes: Notice Concerning Application of Board Rules to Such Notes and of Filing of Rule Change," MSRB Reports, Vol. 2, No. 7 (Oct./Nov. 1982) at 17; "Application of Board's Rules to Municipal Commercial Paper," MSRB Reports, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan. 1982) at 9 (the "CP Notice"); "Application of Board's Rules to Participation Interests in Municipal Tax-Exempt Financing Arrangements," MSRB Reports, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan. 1982) at 13; "Notice Concerning Application of Board's Rules to MAC Warrants," [1977-1987 Transfer Binder] MSRB Manual (CCH) � 10,171 (Jan. 22, 1981) (the "Warrant Notice").

7. Section 2(b) provides that the Investment Company Act shall not apply to a state, or any political subdivision of a state, or any agency, authority, or instrumentality thereof.

8. As noted in the March Notice, the definition of municipal fund security is not limited to local government pool or higher education trust interests that are municipal securities but also would apply to any municipal security of an issuer that, but for the identity of the issuer as a state or local governmental entity, would constitute an investment company under the Investment Company Act.

9. Municipal fund securities generally provide investment return and are valued based on the investment performance of an underlying pool of assets having an aggregate value that may increase or decrease from day to day, rather than providing interest payments at a stated rate or discount, as is the case for more traditional municipal securities. In addition, unlike traditional municipal securities, these interests do not have stated par values or maturity dates and cannot be priced based on yield or dollar price. See generally NAST Report, supra note 2; S&P Report, supra note 2; CSPN Report, supra note 3.

10. A commentator states that, although the Board has no authority to regulate either local government pool or higher education trust interests, it believes that interested parties would not resist "appropriate regulation" of higher education trust interests. It states that regulation of transactions in such interests is "arguably both more important and less controversial" than regulation of local government pool interests, noting that higher education trust interests "clearly affect public investors and the public interest."

11. Commentators observe that municipal securities are defined in Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act as "securities which are direct obligations of, or obligations guaranteed as to principal or interest by, a State or any political subdivision thereof," in contrast to the language used in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 regarding any "security issued or guaranteed ... by any State of the United States, or by any political subdivision of a State or Territory." They quote a Senate report statement on the Securities Acts Amendments that "'municipal securities' refers to debt obligations of state and local government issuers." Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, S.Rep. No. 75, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 38 (1975) (the "1975 Senate Report"); but cf. Securities Acts Amendments of 1975, H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 229, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 101 (1975) (the "1975 Conference Report") (amendments "provide a comprehensive pattern for the registration and regulation of securities firms and banks which underwrite and trade securities issued by States and municipalities") (emphasis added). They note references in SEC no-action letters to obligations under the Internal Revenue Code to support their position that municipal securities are limited to debt obligations. See Itel Corp., SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 100581018 (Oct. 1, 1981) (the "Itel Letter"); Bedford-Watt Enterprises, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 062678019 (June 9, 1978) (the "Bedford-Watt Letter"). In addition, an SEC no-action letter is cited to suggest that an equity security may not be a municipal security. See City Employees' Retirement System of the City of Los Angeles, SEC No-Action Letter, [1977-1978 Dec.] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) � 81,194 (May 12, 1977) (the "CERS Letter").

12. Thus, non-dealer firms may act as investment advisers to local government pool or higher education trust programs and not become subject to Board rules.

13. SEC Letter, supra note 4.

14. See, e.g., Maine College Savings Program Fund, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 080999001 (Aug. 2, 1999) (the "Maine Letter");Teachers Personal Investors Services, Inc., SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 092898006 (Sept. 10, 1998) (the "TPIS Letter"); New Hampshire Higher Education Savings Plan Trust, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 070698010 (June 30, 1998) (the "New Hampshire Letter"); Public Employees Retirement Board of the State of Oregon, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 041398009 (March 3, 1998) (the "Oregon Letter"); North Carolina State Education Assistance Authority, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 032497016 (March 24, 1997) (the "North Carolina Letter"); Missouri Family Trust Fund, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 101392001 (Sept. 22, 1992) (the "Missouri Letter").

15. Maine Letter, supra note 14. SEC staff's position was conditioned on the dealer complying with all existing Board rules, other than those proposed to be amended in the March Notice, and complying with all Board rules upon completion of the current Board rulemaking process. Counsel had opined that the interests were direct obligations of an instrumentality of a state and therefore were municipal securities within the meaning of Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act. See id. and accompanying letter of inquiry.

16. TPIS Letter, supra note 14. SEC staff stated that this no-action position expires six months after rule G-3 is amended to establish qualification requirements for persons selling such interests.

17. Id. Counsel had opined that the interests were direct obligations of an instrumentality of a state and, therefore, were municipal securities under the Exchange Act. See id. and accompanying letter of inquiry. See also New York State College Choice Tuition Savings Trust, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 091498008 (Sept. 10, 1998) and accompanying letter of inquiry.

18. See, e.g., Maine Letter, supra note 14; New Hampshire Letter, supra note 14; North Carolina Letter, supra note 14.

19. See Maine Letter, supra note 14, and accompanying letter of inquiry; New Hampshire Letter, supra note 14, and accompanying letter of inquiry; North Carolina Letter, supra note 14, and accompanying letter of inquiry. See also Missouri Letter, supra note 14, and accompanying letter of inquiry.

20. See Oregon Letter, supra note 14. Counsel opined that the interests would be exempt from the registration requirements of the Exchange Act as securities issued by a state instrumentality. See id. and accompanying letter of inquiry. See also Pennsylvania Local Government Investment Trust, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 022283009 (Feb. 21, 1983) (the "Pennsylvania Letter") and accompanying letter of inquiry, in which counsel opined that interests in a local government pool were municipal securities under the Exchange Act that qualified for the exemption from the registration requirements of Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. SEC staff did not expressly rely on this opinion in arriving at its no-action position.

21. See, e.g., City of El Paso de Robles, SEC No-Action Letter, Wash. Serv. Bur. (CCH) File No. 111285020 (June 18, 1985) (the "El Paso de Robles Letter"); MAC Warrant Notice, supra note 6. The SEC's position with respect to these two types of non-debt securities stands in contrast to SEC staff's earlier position regarding call options in the CERS Letter, supra note 11.

22. See El Paso de Robles Letter, supra note 21.

23. MAC Warrant Notice, supra note 6. The MAC Warrant Notice was cited with approval by SEC staff in a letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. See letter dated August 12, 1981 (note 7) from Thomas G. Lovett, Attorney, SEC, to Owen Carney, Director, Investment Securities Division, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the "CP Letter"), reprinted in CP Notice, supra note 6, at 11.

24. See Itel Letter, supra note 11 (term "obligation" in Exchange Act definition of municipal security "would generally include" obligations under the Internal Revenue Code); Bedford-Watt Letter, supra note 11 (Internal Revenue Code "provides a useful analogy"). In the Bedford-Watt Letter, SEC staff recognized that "obligation" under Section 3(a)(29) of the Exchange Act could include non-financial obligations to take actions needed for payment of the security. See also Pennsylvania Letter and accompanying letter of inquiry, supra note 20. In arriving at its opinion that the local government pool interests described in the Pennsylvania Letter were municipal securities, counsel suggested, in reference to the definition of municipal securities in the Exchange Act, "that the word 'obligations' need not be read as 'debt' in this context. The Trust is under obligation to redeem all Shares of Beneficial Interest presented for redemption." In addition, the Chairman of the College Savings Plans Network noted in Congressional testimony that "state-sponsored college tuition programs are secured by the moral or political obligation of the states." Marshall Bennett, Testimony Before the House Committee on Ways and Means, Hearing on Reducing the Tax Burden: II. Providing Tax Relief to Strengthen the Family and Sustain a Strong Economy, 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (June 23, 1999), available at <http://www.house.gov/ways_means/fullcomm/106cong/6-23-99/6-23benn.htm> (visited Aug. 26, 1999) (emphasis added).

25. See El Paso de Robles Letter, supra note 21; MAC Warrant Notice, supra note 6.

26. See 1975 Senate Report, supra note 11, at 90, 92.

27. Id. at 92.

28. See, e.g., House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Federal Supervision of Traffic in Investment Securities in Interstate Commerce, H.R.Rep. No. 85, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 6, 14 (1933) (the "1933 House Report").

29. Id. at 14. This view was confirmed the following year during House committee hearings on the Exchange Act by the Commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission, which was charged with enforcing the Securities Act. See Stock Exchange Regulation: Hearing on H.R. 7852 and H.R. 8720 Before the House Comm. on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. 899 (1934) (the "1934 House Hearings") (statement of James M. Landis, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission). Commissioner Landis stated:

We had that same problem up in the Securities Act, where the exemption that is given to what might be called municipal bonds, and bonds of States and their instrumentalities, and is drawn according to a line that parallels the line that is drawn which makes tax-exempt municipal bonds, State instrumentalities, and so on. In other words, every instrumentality of a State which, like a municipality, or a political subdivision of a State, was exempted from taxation, would be exempted from registration upon an issue of securities. That is the line drawn in the Securities Act. If exempt from taxation they are also exempted from the necessity of registration under that act.

30. See, e.g., Securities Act: Hearings on S. 875 Before the Senate Comm. on Banking and Currency on S. 875, 73d Cong., 1st. Sess. 65 (1933) (the "1933 Senate Hearings") (statement of Sen. Reynolds); id. at 228, 232 (statement of Sen. Kean); id. at 232 (statement of Sen. Costigan); id. at 303 (statement of Sen. Norbeck); 77 Cong. Rec. 2925 (1933) (statement of Rep. Studley).

31. See 1934 House Hearings, supra note 29, at 822 (statement of Rep. Pettingill); id. at 898-9 (statements of James M. Landis, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission; Rep. Pettingill). This concern also served as a primary basis for the exemption of municipal securities under the Securities Act. See 1933 House Report, supra note 28, at 14, and text accompanying note 29 above.

32. See 1934 House Hearings, supra note 29, at 721, 911-3 (statement of Rep. Holmes); Stock Exchange Practices: Hearings on S. Res. 84 and S. Res. 56 and S. Res. 97 Before the Senate Comm. on Banking and Currency, 73d Cong., 1st Sess. 7441-52 (1934) (the "1934 Senate Hearings") (statements of Archibald B. Roosevelt, Roosevelt & Weifold, Inc.; George B. Gibbons, George B. Gibbons & Co.; Sen. Gore; Sen. Goldsborough).

33. See 1934 House Hearings, supra note 29, at 720 (statement of Rep. Holmes).

34. See 1934 Senate Hearings, supra note 32, at 7413 (statements of H.H. Cotton, Investment Bank of Los Angeles; Ferdinand Pecora, Counsel to the Committee; Sen. Fletcher); id. at 7477 (statements of Tom K. Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; Sen. Adams; Sen. Walcott); 1934 House Hearings, supra note 29, at 7201(statements of Tom K. Smith, Assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; Rep. Holmes); id. at 819-23 (statements of George B. Gibbons, George B. Gibbons & Co.; Rep. Merritt; Rep. Rayburn; Rep. Pettengill).

35. See note 29 above and accompanying text.

36. The phrase "security issued or guaranteed by" used in Section 3(a)(2) of the Securities Act introduces bank securities (including bank equity securities) as well as government and municipal securities. In contrast, the phrase "securities which are direct obligations of or obligations guaranteed as to principal or interest by" used in Section 3(a)(12) of the Exchange Act introduced only municipal and government securities. Thus, even though the drafters of both the Securities Act and the Exchange Act thought of municipal and government securities solely as debt securities, the term "obligation" (to the extent such term is limited to debt securities) could only be used in the Exchange Act.

37. 1975 Senate Report, supra note 11, at 47. See also CP Letter (note 7), supra note 23.

38. In testimony at a 1975 Senate committee hearing on the Securities Acts Amendments, a representative of the Municipal Finance Officers Association stated that the municipal securities market "is completely a debt market." Securities Acts Amendments of 1975: Hearings on S. 249 Before the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. 479 (1975) (statement of Michael S. Zarin, Member, Comm. on Governmental Debt Administration, Municipal Finance Officers Association). Having been so informed, the Senate's description in the 1975 Senate Report, supra note 11, at 38, of municipal securities as "debt obligations of state and local government issuers," as noted by some commentators on the March Notice, in fact merely reflected an understanding of the nature of the municipal securities market at such time, not an understanding that the Exchange Act definition of municipal securities was to be limited only to the debt segment of a broader municipal market that might also include equity securities.

39. As noted above, one commentator concedes that interests in higher education trusts "clearly affect public investors and the public interest."

40. Commentators list Congressional concern about unconscionable markups, churning of accounts, misrepresentations, disregard of suitability standards, high-pressure sales techniques, fraudulent trading practices resulting in substantial losses to public investors, and threats to the integrity of the local government capital-raising system. They argue that there is no opportunity for unconscionable markups and little incentive for churning of accounts or use of high-pressure sales techniques for these interests because they are purchased and redeemed at the current net asset value and purchasers do not pay commissions. Commentators also argue that suitability concerns are not raised since local government pools are operated like money market funds and invest solely in the types of investments that their participants are permitted by state law to purchase.

41. One commentator states that protections exist under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, state regulations, voluntary adherence to the Investment Company Act and related federal regulations applicable to investment company securities, and Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 31 relating to accounting and financial reporting for certain investments and for external investment pools.

42. See 1975 Conference Report, supra note 11, at 101.

43. As originally proposed, rule D-9 would have excluded from the definition of customer "the issuer of securities which are the subject of the transaction in question." See "Notice of Filing of Fair Practice Rules," [1977-1987 Transfer Binder] MSRB Manual (CCH) � 10,030 (Sept. 20, 1977). In amending the original proposed rule language to limit this exclusion solely to "the issuer in connection with the sale of a new issue of its securities," the Board stated that it believed "that the protections afforded customers by its rules should be extended to issuers when they act in secondary market transactions." See "Notice of Filing of Amendments to Fair Practice Rules," [1977-1987 Transfer Binder] MSRB Manual (CCH) � 10,058 (Feb. 28, 1978). Given that the Board has always felt that issuers should be considered customers even in secondary market transactions involving their own securities, issuers certainly should be considered customers in transactions involving securities of other issuers. Furthermore, in Congressional testimony on the bankruptcy filing of Orange County, California and its local government pool, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt discussed customer protection rules of self-regulatory organizations as they may apply to state or local governmental entities acting as customers. See Derivative Financial Instruments Relating to Banks and Financial Institutions: Hearings Before the Senate Comm. on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 104th Cong., 1st Sess. (1995) ("SEC Testimony").

44. S&P Report, supra note 2, at 3, 6-11. The Board takes no position as to which of these local government pools may issue interests that would constitute municipal fund securities.

45. Id. at 3.

46. One commentator identifies several state-run and county-run pools (including the Orange County, California pool) as having had recent financial difficulties. See also NAST Report, supra note 2, at 2, 5, 38; S&P Report, supra note 2, at 5.

47. NAST has stated that it:

recognizes that potential pool participants have numerous alternative investment vehicles from which to choose. The goal of the … [NAST Guidelines for Local Government Investment Pools] is to insure that local government investment officials, when choosing among their available investment options, are fully aware of significant investment and administrative policies, practices and restrictions of the pool and are thereby able to make informed investment decisions on behalf of the local governments. … NAST further recommends that the broker/dealer community govern itself to follow the same standards of conduct NAST has recommended for treasurers.

NAST Report, supra note 2, at 8. As the self-regulatory organization established by Congress to adopt rules for dealer transactions in municipal securities, the Board has created a body of rules which, together with these proposed rule changes, constitute the self-governance and standards of conduct which NAST has recommended be established.

48. The Board understands that investment strategies, pay-out restrictions, and fees and redemption charges or penalties of the existing higher education trusts vary. At least some higher education trusts permit sales of interests to persons living in other states and permit redemption proceeds to be used to pay higher education expenses in any state. In other cases, redemption proceeds may be limited for use within a specific state. See generally CSPN Report, supra note 3. Thus, a single customer may have a choice of investments in various higher education trusts having widely differing investment strategies and terms. The Board takes no position as to which of these higher education trusts may issue interests that would constitute municipal fund securities.

49. See NAST Report, supra note 2, at 8 ("The investment alternatives offered by brokers/dealers to public finance officials should be suitable for the public entity's objectives."). The fact that a local government pool's assets are invested in investments that are legally available as direct investments by local governments does not resolve suitability issues. See note 39 above. As with transactions in any other municipal security, rule G-19 would require a dealer recommending a transaction in a municipal fund security to have reasonable grounds for believing that the recommendation is suitable, based upon information available from the issuer or otherwise and the facts disclosed by or otherwise known about the customer. These suitability requirements do not differ in substance from those of the NASD, to which dealers effecting transactions in such interests might otherwise be subject if these interests are not municipal securities. See also SEC Testimony, supra note 43.

50. See, e.g., Sections 15(b)(3) and 15B(a)(3) of the Exchange Act.

51. Actual interpretations relating to how certain rules would be applied to transactions in municipal fund securities would be filed with the SEC to the extent required under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 19b-4.

52. This view regarding sales of municipal fund securities as part of a primary offering is based on SEC staff's statement in the SEC Letter, supra note 4, that it would view such securities as having been sold in a primary offering for purposes of Rule 15c2-12.

53. Two commentators suggest that the Board exempt municipal fund securities from the prohibition in rule A-13(e) from passing through underwriting assessments to issuers.

54. Commentators note that many local government pools have annual share turn-over rates of 3 to 4 times their assets, due to the fact that many participants are investing short-term funds that move in and out of the pools frequently during the course of the year. Another commentator believes that this multiplier may reach as high as 10 times assets. One commentator estimates that total issuances of interests in local government pools may be on the same order of magnitude as issuances of traditional municipal securities.

55. In the alternative, some commentators suggest that underwriting assessments should be based on net issuances of municipal fund securities, taking into account all securities retired. Another commentator suggests a flat annual or monthly fee set at a modest level.

56. Two commentators suggest that local government pool interests be excluded from this definition. The Board declines to do so for the reasons noted above.

57. Thus, an associated person who sells both municipal fund securities and other types of municipal securities would be required to qualify as a municipal securities representative or general securities representative.

58. One commentator suggests exempting dealers in local government pool interests from the requirement of having municipal securities principals, provided that they meet the requirements regarding principals established by the NASD. The Board believes that dealers effecting transactions in municipal fund securities must have a municipal securities principal who is required to be familiar with Board rules.

59. Several factors influenced the Board's determination to exempt such securities from rule G-14, as set forth in the March Notice. If the Board receives information in the future that practices have developed in the municipal fund security market that merit reporting of transaction information, it will consider whether to revisit the exemption from rule G-14.

60. Disclosure of deferred commissions or other charges would cover, for example, any deferred sales load or, in the case of interests in certain higher education trusts, any penalty imposed on a redemption that is not for a qualifying higher education expense.

61. In addition to the comments described below, one commentator suggests that the draft amendment relating to disclosure of deferred commissions or redemption charges be clarified to indicate that information may be disclosed in a program description document together with the confirmation or periodic statement. The Board believes that this provision does not require revision since it already permits disclosure of such information in a document separate from the confirmation or periodic statement, although the confirmation or periodic statement must disclose that such deferred commission or charge may exist and that information will be furnished upon written request.

62. They note that individual confirmations for the frequent purchases and redemptions of local government pool interests would impose high administrative and cost burdens.

63. It states that this would be "analogous to and consistent with" the provisions of Rule 10b-10 permitting periodic statements in lieu of confirmations for non-periodic transactions in tax-qualified individual retirement and individual pension plans.

64. In addition, the Board has made a minor language change to paragraph (a)(vi)(G) to make clearer that quarterly statements in lieu of individual confirmations also would be available for arrangements involving a group of two or more customers.

65. A commentator states that requiring customer consent to receive quarterly statements would impose administrative burdens on dealers that are not justified by any investor protection interest. It notes practical difficulties with sending confirmations to some members of a group plan and quarterly statements to others, stating that if the dealer fails to receive consent from any customer, it might be forced to send individual confirmations to all customers. The commentator states that, in adopting the investment company plan exception to the confirmation requirements in Rule 10b-10, the SEC recognized that securities sold through such plans do not require the same level of reporting as other securities transactions since their regularized nature raised fewer concerns about whether a particular transaction was executed consistent with the expectations of the customer.

66. A commentator states that municipal fund securities will not be issued in certificated form and therefore the delivery provisions under subparagraph (a)(i)(A)(7) would not be relevant. Subparagraph (a)(i)(A)(7) would require that the confirmation for a municipal fund security transaction indicate the purchase price (exclusive of commission) of each share or unit and the number of shares or units to be delivered, regardless of whether a physical or book-entry delivery of the securities will occur.

67. The commentator states that such securities are ineligible for ratings and such notation might be misleading. However, the Board notes that a relatively small number of local government pools have in fact been rated. See NAST Report, supra note 2, at 36. See generally S&P Report, supra note 2.

68. The Board understands that, in the context of local government pools, the term "yield" may be used to refer to historical returns that may be used as a basis for comparing investment performance. See NAST Report, supra note 2, at 8. References in rule G-21 to yield, consistent with its use in other Board rules, refer to a future rate of return on securities and do not refer to historical yields. The Board notes that any use of historical yields would be subject to section (c) of rule G-21, which provides that no dealer shall publish or cause to be published any advertisement concerning municipal securities which such dealer knows or has reason to know is materially false or misleading. Thus, a dealer advertisement of municipal fund securities that refers to yield typically would require a description of the nature and significance of the yield shown in the advertisement in order to assure that such advertisement is not false or misleading.

69. Rule G-32 defines underwriting period for securities purchased by a dealer (not in a syndicate) as the period commencing with the first submission to the dealer of an order for the purchase of the securities or the purchase of the securities from the issuer, whichever first occurs, and ending at such time as the following two conditions both are met: (1) the issuer delivers the securities to the dealer, and (2) the dealer no longer retains an unsold balance of the securities purchased from the issuer or 21 calendar days elapse after the date of the first submission of an order for the securities, whichever first occurs. However, since the issuer continuously delivers municipal fund securities, the first condition for the termination of the underwriting period remains unmet.

70. In addition, in the case of a repeat purchaser of municipal fund securities for which no official statement in final form is being prepared, no new delivery of the written notice to that effect or of any official statement in preliminary form would be required so long as the customer has previously received it in connection with a prior purchase. However, if an official statement in final form is subsequently prepared, the customer's next purchase would trigger the delivery requirement with respect to such official statement.

71. Dealers may still elect to acquire CUSIP numbers for municipal fund securities and to make such securities depository eligible, subject to meeting all of the eligibility requirements of the CUSIP Service Bureau and of any securities depository, respectively.

72. If the primary offering is exempt from Rule 15c2-12 (other than as a result of being a limited offering as described in section (d)(1)(i) of the Rule) and an official statement has been prepared by the issuer, then the dealer would be expected to send the official statement, together with Form G-36(OS), to the Board under rule G-36(c)(i).

73. Rule G-36(d) provides that a dealer that has previously sent an official statement to the Board also is required to send to the Board any amendments made by the issuer during the underwriting period. In view of the extended underwriting period for municipal fund securities and the possibility that the issuer may change the dealer that participates in the sale of the securities during the life of the program, the Board would interpret this provision of the rule to obligate any dealer that is at the time of an amendment then serving as underwriter for the municipal fund securities to send the amendment to the Board, regardless of whether that dealer or another dealer sent the original official statement to the Board.

74. Underlining indicates additions to existing Board rules; strikethrough indicates deletions from existing Board rules.

Copyright 2000 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Conditions of Use.

Rule G-15(a) requires that, at or before the completion of a transaction in municipal securities with or for the account of a customer, each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer (dealers) shall give or send to the customer "a written confirmation of the transaction" containing specified information. Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 states similar confirmation requirements for customer transactions in securities other than municipal securities. In December 1992, Thomson Financial Services, Inc. (Thomson) asked the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) to allow dealers to use Thomson's OASYS Global system for delivering confirmation under Rule 10b-10. In October 1993, the Commission staff provided Thomson with a "no-action" letter stating that, if OASYS Global system participants agree between themselves to use the system's electronic "contract confirmation messages" (CCMs) instead of hard-copy confirmations and if certain other requirements are met[1] the Commission staff would not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if broker-dealers rely on CCMs sent through the OASYS Global system to satisfy the requirements to confirm a transaction under Rule 10b-10.[2]

Thomson has asked the Board for an interpretation of rule G-15(a) that would allow dealers to use the OASYS Global system for municipal securities transactions to the same extent as dealers are allowed to use the system to comply with Rule 10b-10. The Board believes that the speed and efficiencies offered by electronic confirmation delivery are of benefit to the municipal securities industry, especially in light of the move to T+3 settlement. Therefore, the Board has interpreted the requirement in rule G-15(a) to provide customers with a written confirmation to be satisfied by a CCM sent through the OASYS Global system when the following conditions are met: (i) the customer and dealer have both agreed to use the OASYS Global system for purposes of confirmation delivery; (ii) the CCM includes all information required by rule G-15(a); and (iii) all other applicable requirements and conditions concerning the OASYS Global system expressed in the Commission's October 8, 1993 no-action letter concerning Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-10 continue to be met.[3]

[1] The other requirements contained in the Commission's no-action letter are as follows: (i) that the CCMs can be printed or downloaded by the participants, (ii) that the recipient of a CCM must respond through the system affirming or rejecting the trade, (iii) that the CCMs will not be automatically deleted by the system, and (iv) that the use of the system by the participants ensures that both parties to the transaction have the capacity to receive the CCMs.

[2] The Commission's October 8, 1993 no-action letter is reprinted in MSRB Reports, Vol. 14, No. 3 (June 1994) at 38-39.

[3] The Board understands that Thomson's OASYS Global system is not at this time a registered securities clearing agency and is not linked with other registered securities clearing agencies for purposes of automated confirmation/acknowledgement required under rule G-15(d). Thus, under these circumstances, use of the OASYS Global system will not constitute compliance with rule G-15(d) on automated confirmation/acknowledgement.

New products are constantly being introduced into the municipal securities market. Dealers must ensure that, prior to effecting transactions with customers in municipal securities with new features, they obtain all necessary information regarding these features. The Board will attempt periodically through educational notices to describe new products or features of municipal securities and review the responsibilities of dealers to customers in these transactions. In this notice, the Board will review detachable call features.

Certain recent issues of municipal securities include a new feature called a detachable call right. This feature allows the issuer to sell its right to call the bond. Thus, upon the sale of this call right, the owner of the right has the ability, at certain times, to require the mandatory tender of the underlying municipal bond. The dates of mandatory tender of the underlying bonds generally correlate with the optional call dates. If the holder exercises such rights, the underlying bondholder tenders its bond to the issuer (just as if the issuer had called the bond) and the holder of the call right purchases the bond. In some instances, issuers already have issued municipal call rights and the underlying bonds in such cases are sometimes referred to as being subject to "detached" call rights.

Bonds subject to detachable call rights generally include a provision that permits an investor that owns both the detached call right and the underlying bond to link the two instruments together, subject to certain conditions. Such "linked" municipal securities would not be subject to being called at certain times by holders of call rights or the issuer. They may, however, be subject to other calls, such as sinking fund provisions. If a customer obtains a linked security, thereafter the customer has the option to de-link the security, again subject to certain conditions, into a municipal call right and an underlying bond subject to a right of mandatory tender.

Applicability of Board Rules

Of course, the Board’s rules apply to bonds subject to detachable call features and "linked" securities just as they apply to all other municipal securities. The Board, however, would like to remind dealers of certain Board rules that should be considered in transactions involving these municipal securities.

Rule G-15(a) on Customer Confirmations

Rule G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] requires customer confirmations to set forth "a description of the securities, including… if the securities are… subject to redemption prior to maturity…, an indication to such effect." Additionally, rule G-15(a)(iii)(F)[*] requires a legend to be placed on customer confirmations of transactions in callable securities which notes that "Call features may exist which could affect yield; complete information will be provided upon request."

Confirmations of transactions in bonds subject to detachable call rights, therefore, would have to indicate this information.[1] In addition, the details of the call provisions of such securities would have to be provided to the customer upon the customer’s request.

Confirmation disclosure, however, serves merely to support—not to satisfy—a dealer’s general disclosure obligations. More specifically, the disclosure items required on the confirmation do not encompass "all material facts" that must be disclosed to customers at the time of trade pursuant to rule G-17.

Rule G-17 on Fair Dealing

Rule G-17 of the Board’s rules of fair practice requires municipal securities dealers to deal fairly with all persons and prohibits them from engaging in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice. The Board has interpreted this rule to require that a dealer must disclose, at or before the sale of municipal securities to a customer, all material facts concerning the transaction, including a complete description of the security, and must not omit any material facts which would render other statements misleading. Among other things, a dealer must disclose at the time of trade whether a security may be redeemed prior to maturity in-whole, in-part, or in extraordinary circumstances because this knowledge is essential to a customer’s investment decision.

Clearly, bonds subject to detachable calls must be described as callable at the time of the trade.[2] In addition, if a dealer is asked by a customer at the time of trade for specific information regarding call features, this information must be obtained and relayed promptly.

Although the Board requires dealers to indicate to customers at the time of trade whether municipal securities are callable, the Board has not categorized which, if any, specific call features it considers to be material and therefore also must be disclosed. Instead, the Board believes that it is the responsibility of the dealer to determine whether a particular feature is material.

With regard to detachable calls, dealers must decide whether the ability of a third party to call the bond is a material fact that should be disclosed to investors. Dealers should make this determination in the same way they determine whether other facets of a municipal securities transaction are material—is it a fact that a reasonable investor would want to know when making an investment decision? For example, would a reasonable investor who knows a bond is callable base an investment decision on whether someone other than the issuer can call the bond? Does this new feature affect the pricing of the bond?

*  *  *

The Board is continuing its review of detachable call rights and may take additional related action at a later date. The Board welcomes the views of all persons on the application of Board rules to transactions in securities subject to detachable call rights.

[1] With regard to the confirmation requirement for linked securities, if these securities are subject to other call provisions such as sinking fund calls, the customer confirmation must indicate that these securities are callable.

[2] Similarly, when considering the application of rule G-17 to transactions in "linked" securities, as with other municipal securities, dealers have the obligation to ensure that investors understand the features of the security. In particular, if a linked security to other call provisions, dealers should ensure that retail customers do not mistakenly believe the bond is "non-callable."

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(a)]

The Board has become aware that some municipal issuers recently have issued securities that are structured as collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs). Like the CMOs issued by non-municipal issuers, these securities represent interest in pools of mortgages and are partitioned into several classes (or tranches), which are serialized as to priority for redemption and payment of principal.

Since these "municipal CMOs" are being issued directly by political subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities of state or local governments, it appears that they may be "municipal securities," as that term is defined under section 3(a)(29) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.[1] Although the interest paid on these instruments may be subject to federal taxation, the Board reminds dealers that transactions in municipal securities are subject to Board rules whether those securities are taxable or tax-exempt. Accordingly, dealers executing transactions in municipal CMOs should ensure that they are in compliance with all applicable Board rules. For example, dealers should ensure that all Board requirements regarding professional qualifications and recordkeeping are observed.[2]

Because the interest and principal payment features of municipal CMOs are very different from those of traditional municipal bonds, dealers should take care to ensure that all Board rules designed for the protection of customers are observed. This includes ensuring that: (i) all material facts about each transaction are disclosed to the customer, in compliance with rule G-17; (ii) each transaction recommended to a customer is suitable for the customer, in compliance with rule G-19; and (iii) the price of each customer transaction is fair and reasonable, in compliance with rule G-30. With respect to the material facts that should be disclosed to customers, dealers should ensure that customers are adequately informed of the likelihood of "prepayment" of principal on the securities and the likelihood of the securities being redeemed substantially prior to the stated maturity date. If the amount of principal that will be delivered to the customer differs from the "face" amount to be delivered, the customer also should be informed of this fact, along with the amount of the principal that will be delivered.

The Board also has reviewed the requirements of rule G-15(a)(i)(l)[*] with respect to confirmation disclosure of "yield to maturity" or "yield to call" on customer confirmations in these securities. Because CMOs typically pay principal to holders prior to maturity and because the actual duration of the securities often varies significantly from the stated maturity, the Board has interpreted rule G-15(a) not to require a statement of yield for transactions in municipal CMOs. A dealer that decides to voluntarily include a statement of "yield" on a confirmation for these securities must also disclose on the confirmation the method by which yield was computed. This will help to avoid the possibility of the customer misunderstanding the yield figure if he should use it to compare the merits of alternative investments.

The Board will be monitoring municipal CMOs and will adopt specific rules for the instruments in the future if this appears to be necessary.

[1] Of course, whether any instrument is a municipal security is a matter to be determined by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

[2] In addition, as noted above, the interest paid on these instruments may be subject to federal taxation. If the securities are identified by the issuer or sold by the underwriter as subject to federal taxation, rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) require confirmations to contain a designation to that effect.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)]

Disclosure of the investment of bond proceeds. This is in response to your letter asking whether rule G-15(a), on customer confirmations, requires disclosure of the investment of bond proceeds.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] requires dealers to note on customer confirmations the description of the securities, including, at a minimum

the name of the issuer, interest rate, maturity date and if the securities are limited tax, subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable), or revenue bonds, an indication to such effect, including in the case of revenue bonds the type of revenue, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, and in the case of any securities, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service or, if there is more than one such obligor, the statement "multiple obligors" may be shown.

The Board has not interpreted this provision as requiring disclosure of the investment of bond proceeds.

Of course, rule G-17, on fair dealing, has been interpreted by the Board to require that, in connection with the purchase from or sale of a municipal security to a customer, at or before execution of the transaction, a dealer must disclose all material facts concerning the transaction which could affect the customer's investment decision and must not omit any material facts which would render other statements misleading. Thus, if information on the investment of bond proceeds of a particular issue is a material fact, Board rules require disclosure at the time of trade. MSRB Interpretation of August 16, 1991.

[*][Currently codified at rules G-15(a)(i)(B) and G-15(a)(i)(C)]

In recent months, several dealers have requested guidance from the Board on the appropriate confirmation treatment of miscellaneous charges added to customer transactions. These inquiries typically relate to small amounts which some dealers add to the combined extended principal and accrued interest of a transaction, prior to arriving at the final monies.[1] In some cases, the charges are levied for specific services provided as part of the transaction (e.g., special delivery arrangements, delivery of physical securities, delivery vs. payment settlement). In other cases, dealers may charge a flat fee characterized simply as a "transaction fee." These miscellaneous fees differ from the commissions charged on agency transactions in that they are flat amounts and are not computed from the par value of the transaction.

Rule G-15(a)(iii)(J)[*] requires each customer confirmation to include, in addition to the specific items noted in G-15(a), "such other information as may be necessary to ensure that the parties agree to the details of the transaction." Accordingly, the nature and amount of miscellaneous charges must be noted on the confirmation.[2]

Questions have arisen whether miscellaneous transaction fees also should be reflected in the yield required to be disclosed on the confirmation under rule G-15(a)(i)(l).[3] The Board does not believe that it is appropriate for these fees to be incorporated in the stated yield. Because such fees are small, they generally will not significantly affect a customer's return on investment. To the extent that the minor miscellaneous fees charged in today's market may be relevant to the customer's investment decision, the Board believes that a clear disclosure of the nature and amount of the fee on the confirmation will provide customers with sufficient information. If the practice of charging that the fees routinely begin to represent significant factors in customers' return on investment, the Board may reconsider this interpretation in favor of placing the charges in the stated yield.

[1] In purchases from customers, such transaction charges may be subtracted from the monies owed the customer.

[2] The Board also has considered questions relating to periodic charges, such as monthly charges for safekeeping. A dealer assessing periodic charges to customer accounts, of course, must reach agreement with the customer on the nature and extent of the charges and the services that will be provided in return. However, since periodic charges do not relate to a specific transaction and may change over time, a dealer's policy on periodic charges is not required on the confirmation as a "detail of the transaction."

[3] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)] Commissions charged on agency transactions must be included in the yield calculation. See [Rule G-15 Interpretive Letter - Agency transactions: yield disclosures] MSRB interpretation of July 13, 1984, MSRB Manual 3571,33 at 4528. This has led dealers to ask whether miscellaneous transaction charges should be handled in a similar manner. As noted above, the Board does not believe that miscellaneous charges should be handled in the same manner as commissions.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)]

Confirmation requirements for partially refunded securities. This will respond to your letter of May 16, 1989. The Board reviewed your letter at its August 1989 meeting and authorized this response.

You ask what is the correct method of computing price from yield on certain types of "partially prerefunded" issues having a mandatory sinking fund redemption. The escrow agreement for the issues provides for a stated portion of the issue to be redeemed at a premium price on an optional, "in-whole," call date for the issue. The remainder of the issue is subject to a sinking fund redemption at par.[1] Unlike some issues that are prerefunded by certificate number, the certificates that will be called at a premium price on the optional call date are not identified and published in advance. Instead, they are selected by lottery 30 to 60 days before the redemption date for the premium call. Prior to this time, it is not known which certificates will be called at a premium price on the optional call date. In the particular issues you have described, the operation of the sinking fund redemption will retire the entire issue prior to the stated maturity date for the issue.

As you know, rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) govern inter-dealer and customer confirmations, respectively. Rules G-12(c)(v)(1) and G-15(a)(i)(1)[*] require the dollar price computed from yield and shown on the confirmation to be computed to the lower of call date or maturity. For purposes of computing price to call, only "in-whole" calls, of the type which may be exercised in the event of a refunding, are used.[2] Accordingly, the Board previously has concluded that the sinking fund redemption in the type of issue you have described should be ignored and the dollar price should be calculated to the lowest of the "in-whole" call date for the issue (i.e., the redemption date of the prerefunding) or maturity. In addition, the stated maturity date must be used for the calculation of price to maturity rather than any "effective" maturity which results from the operation of the sinking fund redemption. Identical rules apply when calculating yield from dollar price. Of course, the parties to a transaction may agree to calculate price or yield to a specific date, e.g., a date which takes into account a sinking fund redemption. If this is done, it should be noted on the confirmation.[3]

In our telephone conversations, you also asked what is the appropriate securities description for securities that are advance refunded in this manner. Rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(i)(E)[†] require that confirmations of securities that are "prerefunded" include a notation of this fact along with the date of "maturity" that has been fixed by the advance refunding and the redemption price. The rules also state that securities that are redeemable prior to maturity must be described as "callable".[4] In addition, rules G-12(c)(vi)(I) and G-15(a)(iii)(J)[‡] state that confirmations must include information not specifically required by the rules if the information is necessary to ensure that the parties agree to the details of the transaction. Since, in this case, only a portion of the issue will be chosen by lot and redeemed at a premium price under the prerefunding, this fact must be noted on the confirmation. As an example, the issue could be described as "partially prerefunded to [redemption date] at [premium price] to be chosen by lot-callable." The notation of this fact must be included within the securities description shown on the front of the confirmation. MSRB Interpretation of August 15, 1989.

[1] In some issues, a sinking fund redemption operates prior to the optional call date, while, in others, the sinking fund redemption does not begin until on or after that date.

[2] See [Rule G-15 Interpretation –] Notice of December 10, 1980, Concerning Pricing to Call, MSRB Manual, paragraph 3571.

[3] These rules on pricing partially prerefunded securities with sinking funds are set forth in [Rule G-15 Interpretive Letter – Disclosure of pricing: calculating the dollar price of partially prerefunded bonds,] MSRB  interpretation of May 15, 1986, MSRB Manual, paragraph 3571.26.

[4] The Board has published an interpretive notice providing specific guidance on the confirmation of advanced refunded securities that are callable pursuant to an optional call. See Application of Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) on Confirmation Disclosure of Escrowed-to-Maturity Securities [in Rule G-17 Interpretation – Notice of Interpretation on Escrowed-to-Maturity Securities: Rules G-17, G-12 and G-15], MSRB Manual, paragraph 3581.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(c)(i)] 

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(3)(a)]

[‡] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)]

Calculation of Price and Yield on Continuously Callable Securities. This will respond to your letter of May 30, 1989, relating to the calculation of price and yield in transactions involving municipal securities which can be called by the issuer at any time after the first optional "in-whole" call date. The Board reviewed your letter at its August 1989 meeting and has authorized this response.

Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) govern inter-dealer and customer confirmations, respectively. For transactions executed on a yield basis, rules G-12(c)(v)(l) and G-15(a)(v)(l)[*] require the dollar price computed from yield and shown on the confirmation to be computed to the lower of call or maturity. The rules also require the call date and price to be shown on the confirmation when securities are priced to a call date.

In computing price to call, only "in-whole" calls, of the type which may be exercised in the event of a refunding, should be used.[1] The "in-whole" call producing the lowest price must be used when computing price to call. If there is a series of "in-whole" call dates with declining premiums, a calculation to the first premium call date generally will produce the lowest price to call. However, in certain circumstances involving premiums which decline steeply over a short time, an "intermediate" call date--a date on which a lower premium or par call becomes operative--may produce the lowest price. Dealers must calculate prices to intermediate call dates when this is the case.[2] Identical rules govern the computation and display of yield to call and yield to maturity, as required on customer confirmations under rule G-15(a).

The issues that you describe are callable at declining premiums, in part or in whole, at any time after the first optional call date. There is no restriction on the issuer in exercising a call after this date except for the requirement to give 30 to 60 days notice of the redemption. Since this "continuous" call provision is an "in-whole" call of the type which may be used for a refunding, it must be considered when calculating price or yield.

The procedure for calculating price to call for these issues is the same as for other securities with declining premium calls. Dealers must take the lowest price possible from the operation of an "in-whole" call feature, compare it to the price calculated to maturity and use the lower of the two figures on the confirmation. For settlement dates prior to the first "in-whole" call, it generally should be sufficient to check the first and intermediate call dates (including the par call), determine which produces the lowest price, and compare that price to the price calculated to maturity. For settlement dates occurring after the first "in-whole" call date, it must be assumed that a notice of call could be published on the day after trade date, which would result in the redemption of the issue 31 days after trade date.[3] The price calculated to this possible redemption date should be compared to prices calculated to subsequent intermediate call dates and the lowest of these prices used as the price to call. The price computed to call then can be compared to the price computed to maturity and the lower of the two included on the confirmation. If a price to call is used, the date and redemption price of the call must be stated. Identical procedures are used for computing yield from price for display on customer confirmations under rule G-15(a).

You also have asked for the Board's interpretation of two official statements which you believe have a continuous call feature and ask whether securities with continuous call features typically are called between the normal coupon dates. The Board's rulemaking authority does not extend to the interpretation of official statements and the Board does not collect information on issuer practices in calling securities. Therefore, the Board cannot assist you with these inquiries. MSRB Interpretation of August 15, 1989.

[1] The parties to a transaction may agree at the time of trade to price securities to a date other than an "in-whole" call date or maturity. If such an agreement is reached, it must be noted on the confirmation.

[2] See [Rule G-15 Interpretation] Notice Concerning Pricing to Call, December 10, 1980, MSRB Manual (CCH) paragraph 3571.

[3] If a notice of call for the entire issue occurs on or prior to the trade date, delivery cannot be made on the transaction and it must be worked out or arbitrated by the parties. See rules G-12(e)(x)(B) and G-15(c)(viii)(B).

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)(c)]

In 1986, several municipal securities dealers began selling ownership rights to discrete interest payments, principal payments or combinations of interest and principal payments on municipal securities. In 1987, the Board asked the Securities and Exchange Commission staff whether these "stripped coupon" instruments are municipal securities for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act and thus are subject to Board rules. On January 19, 1989, the staff of the Division of Market Regulation of the Commission issued a letter stating that, subject to certain conditions, these instruments are municipal securities for purposes of Board rules (SEC staff letter).

The Board is providing the following guidance on the application of its rules to transactions in stripped coupon instruments defined as municipal securities in the SEC staff letter (stripped coupon municipal securities). Questions whether other stripped coupon instruments are municipal securities and questions concerning the SEC staff letter should be directed to the Commission staff.

Background

A dealer sponsoring a stripped coupon municipal securities program typically deposits municipal securities (the underlying securities) with a barred custodian. Pursuant to a custody agreement, the custodian separately records the ownership of the various interest payments, principal payments, or specified combinations of interest and principal payments. One combination of interest and principal payments sometimes offered is the "annual payment security," which represents one principal payment, with alternate semi-annual interest payments. This results in an annual interest rate equal to one-half the original interest rate on the securities.[1] Stripped coupon municipal securities are marketed under trade names such as Municipal Tax Exempt Investment Growth Receipts (Municipal TIGRs), Municipal Receipts (MRs), and Municipal Receipts of Accrual on Exempt Securities (MUNI RAES).

Application of Board Rules

In general, the Board's rules apply to transactions in stripped coupon municipal securities in the same way as they apply to other municipal securities transactions. The Board's rules on professional qualifications and supervision, for example, apply to persons executing transactions in the securities the same as any other municipal security. The Board's rules on recordkeeping, quotations, advertising and arbitration also apply to transactions in the securities. Dealers should be aware that rule G-19, on suitability of recommendations, and rule G-30, on fair pricing, apply to transactions in such instruments.

The Board emphasizes that its rule on fair dealing, rule G-17, requires dealers to disclose to customers purchasing stripped coupon municipal securities all material facts about the securities at or before the time of trade. Any facts concerning the underlying securities which materially affect the stripped coupon instruments, of course, must be disclosed to the customer. The Board understands that some stripped coupon municipal securities are sold without any credit enhancement to the underlying municipal securities. As pointed out in the SEC staff letter, dealers must be particularly careful in these cases to disclose all material facts relevant to the creditworthiness of the underlying issue.

Confirmation Requirements

Dealers generally should confirm transactions in stripped coupon municipal securities as they would transactions in other municipal securities that do not pay periodic interest or which pay interest annually.[2] A review of the Board's confirmation requirements applicable to the securities follows.

Securities Descriptions. Rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(i)(E)[*] require a complete securities description to be included on inter-dealer and customer confirmations, respectively, including the name of the issuer, interest rate and maturity date.[3] In addition to the name of the issuer of the underlying municipal securities, the trade name and series designation assigned to the stripped coupon municipal security by the dealer sponsoring the program must be included on the confirmation.[4] Of course, the interest rate actually paid by the stripped coupon security (e.g., zero percent or the actual, annual interest rate) must be stated on the confirmation rather than the interest rate on the underlying security.[†] Similarly, the maturity date listed on the confirmation must be the date of the final payment made by the stripped coupon municipal security rather than the maturity date of the underlying securities.[5]

Credit Enhancement Information. Rules G-12(c)(vi)(D) and G-15(a)(ii)(D)[‡] require confirmations of securities pre-refunded to a call date or escrowed to maturity to state this fact along with the date of maturity set by the advance refunding and the redemption price. If the underlying municipal securities are advance-refunded, confirmations of the stripped coupon municipal securities must note this. In addition, rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(c)(i)(E)[#] require that the name of any company or other person, in addition to the issuer, obligated directly or indirectly with respect to debt service on the underlying issue or the stripped coupon security be included on confirmations.[6]

Quantity of Securities and Denominations. For securities that mature in more than two years and pay investment return only at maturity, rules G-12(c)(v) and G-15(a)(v)[**] require the maturity value to be stated on confirmations in lieu of par value. This requirement is applicable to transactions in stripped coupon municipal securities over two years in maturity that pay investment return only at maturity, e.g., securities representing one interest payment or one principal payment. For securities that pay only principal and that are pre-refunded at a premium price, the principal amount may be stated as the transaction amount, but the maturity value must be clearly noted elsewhere on the confirmation. This will permit such securities to be sold in standard denominations and will facilitate the clearance and settlement of the securities.

Rules G-12(c)(vi)(F) and G-15(a)(iii)(G)[††] require confirmations of securities that are sold or that will be delivered in denominations other than the standard denominations specified in rules G-12(e)(v) and G-15(a)(iii)(G)[††] to state the denominations on the confirmation. The standard denominations are $1,000 or $5,000 for bearer securities, and for registered securities, increments of $1,000 up to a maximum of $100,000. If stripped coupon municipal securities are sold or will be delivered in any other denominations, the denomination of the security must be stated on the confirmation.

Dated Date. Rules G-12(c)(vi)(A) and G-15(a)(iii)(A)[***] require that confirmations state the dated date of a security if it affects price or interest calculations, and the first interest payment date if other than semi-annual. The dated date for purposes of an interest-paying stripped coupon municipal security is the date that interest begins accruing to the custodian for payment to the beneficial owner. This date, along with the first date that interest will be paid to the owner, must be stated on the confirmation whenever it is necessary for calculation of price or accrued interest.

Original Issue Discount Disclosure. Rules G-12(c)(vi)(G) and G-15(a)(iii)(H)[†††] require that confirmations identify securities that pay periodic interest and that are sold by an underwriter or designated by the issuer as "original issue discount." This alerts purchasers that the periodic interest received on the securities is not the only source of tax-exempt return on investment. Under federal tax law, the purchaser of stripped coupon municipal securities is assumed to have purchased the securities at an "original issue discount," which determines the amount of investment income that will be tax-exempt to the purchaser. Thus, dealers should include the designation of "original issue discount" on confirmations of stripped coupon municipal securities, such as annual payment securities, which pay periodic interest.

Clearance and Settlement of Stripped Coupon Municipal Securities

Under rules G-12(e)(vi)(B) and G-15(a)(iv)(B), delivery of securities transferable only on the books of a custodian can be made only by the bookkeeping entry of the custodian.[7] Many dealers sponsoring stripped coupon programs provide customers with "certificates of accrual" or "receipts," which evidence the type and amount of the stripped coupon municipal securities that are held by the custodian on behalf of the beneficial owner. Some of these documents, which generally are referred to as "custodial receipts," include "assignment forms," which allow the beneficial owner to instruct the custodian to transfer the ownership of the securities on its books. Physical delivery of a custodial receipt is not a good delivery under rules G-12(e) and G-15(a) unless the parties specifically have agreed to the delivery of a custodial receipt. If such an agreement is reached, it should be noted on the confirmation of the transaction, as required by rules G-12(c)(v)(N) and G-15(a)(i)(N)[****].

The Board understands that some stripped coupon municipal securities that are assigned CUSIP numbers and sold in denominations which are multiples of $1,000 are eligible for automated comparison and automated confirmation/affirmation and that some of these instruments also are eligible for book-entry delivery through registered securities depositories. The Board reminds dealers that transactions in stripped coupon municipal securities are subject to the automated clearance requirements of rules G-12(f) and G-15(d) if they are eligible in the automated clearance systems. Dealers sponsoring stripped coupon programs also should note that rule G-34(b)(ii) requires CUSIP numbers to be assigned to stripped coupon municipal securities prior to the initial sale of the securities to facilitate clearance and settlement.

Written Disclosures in Connection with Sales of Stripped Coupon Municipal Securities

Dealers sponsoring stripped coupon municipal securities programs generally prepare "offering circulars" or "offering memoranda" describing the securities that have been placed on deposit with the custodian, the custody agreement under which the securities are held, and the tax treatment of transactions in the securities. These documents generally are provided to all customers purchasing the securities during the initial offering of the instruments. The Board strongly encourages all dealers selling stripped coupon municipal securities to provide these documents to their customers whether the securities are purchased during the initial distribution or at a later time.[8] Although the material information contained in these documents, under rule G-17, must be disclosed to customers orally if not provided in writing prior to the time of trade, the Board believes that the unusual nature of stripped coupon municipal securities and their tax treatment warrants special efforts to provide written disclosures. Moreover, if stripped coupon municipal securities are marketed during the underwriting period of the underlying issue, rule G-32 requires distribution of the official statement for the underlying issue prior to settlement of the transaction of the stripped coupon municipal securities.

[1] The Board understands that other types of stripped coupon municipal securities also may be offered with combinations of interest and principal payments providing an interest rate different than the original interest rate of the securities.

[2] Thus, for stripped coupon municipal securities that do not pay periodic interest, rules G-12(c)(v) and G-15(a)(v) require confirmations to state the interest rate as zero and, for customer confirmations, the inclusion of a legend indicating that the customer will not receive periodic interest payments. [See current rule G-15(a)(vi)(D), G-15(a)(i)(B)(4)(a) and G-15(a)(i)(D)(1).] Rules G-12(c)(vi)(H) and G-15(a)(iii)(l) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(e)] require confirmations of securities paying annual interest to note this fact.

[3] The complete description consists of all of the following information: the name of the issuer, interest rate, maturity date, and if the securities are limited tax, subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable), or revenue bonds, an indication to such effect, including in the case of revenue bonds the type of revenue, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities and in the case of any securities, if necessary for a materially complete description of the securities, the name of any company or other person in addition to the issuer obligated, directly or indirectly, with respect to debt service or, if there is more than one such obligor, the statement, "multiple obligors" may be shown.

[4] Trade name and series designation is required under rules G-12(c)(vi)(l) and G-15(a)(iii)(J) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)], which state that confirmations, must include all information necessary to ensure that the parties agree to the details of the transaction. [See also current rule G-15(a)(i)(B)(1)(a).]

[5] Therefore, the maturity date of a stripped coupon municipal security representing one interest payment is the date of the interest payment. [See current rule G-15(a)(i)(B)(3)(a).]

[6] It should be noted that the SEC staff letter is limited to instruments in which "neither the custodian nor sponsor additionally will guarantee or otherwise enhance the creditworthiness of the underlying municipal security or the stripped coupon security."

[7] Under rules G-12(c)(vi)(B) and G-15(a)(iii)(B) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(d)] the book-entry-only nature of the securities also must be noted on the confirmation.

[8] The Board understands that these documents generally are available from the dealers sponsoring the stripped coupon municipal securities program.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(B)]

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(B)(4)(e)]

[‡] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(3)(c)]

[#] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(1)(b)]

[**] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(3)]

[††] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(7)(b)]

[***] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(B)(5)]

[†††] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(4)(c)]

[****] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(7)(c)]

In March 1988, the Securities and Exchange Commission approved amendments to rules G-12 and G-15 concerning municipal securities that may be issued in bearer or registered form (interchangeable securities).[1] These amendments will become effective for transactions executed on or after September 18, 1988. The amendments revise rules G-12(e) and G-15(c) to allow inter-dealer and customer deliveries of interchangeable securities to be either in bearer or registered form, ending the presumption in favor of bearer certificates for such deliveries. The amendments also delete the provision in rule G-12(g) that allows an inter-dealer delivery of interchangeable securities to be reclaimed within one day if the delivery is in registered form. In addition, the amendments remove the provisions in rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) that require dealers to disclose on inter-dealer and customer confirmations that securities are in registered form.

The Board has received inquiries on several matters concerning the amendments and is providing the following clarifications and interpretive guidance.

Deliveries of Interchangeable Securities

Several dealers have asked whether the amendments apply to securities that can be converted from bearer to registered form, but that cannot then be converted back to bearer form. These securities are "interchangeable securities" because they originally were issuable in either bearer or registered form. Therefore, under the amendments, physical deliveries of these certificates may be made in either bearer or registered form, unless a contrary agreement has been made by the parties to the transaction.[2]

The Board also has been asked whether a mixed delivery of bearer and registered certificates is permissible under the amendments. Since the amendments provide that either bearer or registered certificates are acceptable for physical deliveries, a delivery consisting of bearer and registered certificates also is an acceptable delivery under the amendments.

Fees for Conversion

Transfer agents for some interchangeable securities charge fees for conversion of registered certificates to bearer form. Dealers should be aware that these fees can be substantial and, in some cases, may be prohibitively expensive. Dealers, therefore, should ascertain the amount of the fee prior to agreeing to deliver bearer certificates. A dealer may pass on the costs of converting registered securities to bearer form to its customer. In such a case, the dealer must disclose the amount of the conversion fee to the customer at or prior to the time of trade, and the customer must agree to pay it.[3] In addition, rule G-15(a)(iii)(J)[*] requires that the dealer note such an agreement (including the amount of the conversion fee) on the confirmation.[4] The conversion fee, however, should not be included in the price when calculating the yield shown on the confirmation.[5] In collecting this fee, the dealer merely would be passing on the costs imposed by a third party, voluntarily assumed by the customer, relating to the form in which the securities are held. The conversion fee thus is not a necessary or intrinsic cost of the transaction for purposes of yield calculation.[6]

Continued Application of the Board's Automated Clearance Rules

The Board's automated clearance rules, rules G-12(f) and G-15(d), require book-entry settlements of certain inter-dealer and customer transactions.[7] The amendments on interchangeable securities address only physical deliveries of certificates and, therefore, apply solely to transactions that are not required to be settled by book-entry under the automated clearance rules.

When a physical delivery is permitted under Board rules (e.g., because the securities are not depository eligible), dealers may agree at the time of trade on the form of certificates to be delivered. When such an agreement is made, this special condition must be included on the confirmation, as required by rules G-12(c)(vi)(I) and G-15(a)(iii)(J).[8][*]Dealers, however, may not enter into an agreement providing for a physical delivery when book-entry settlement is required under the automated clearance rules, as this would result in a violation of the automated clearance rules.[9]

Need for Education of Customers on Benefits of Registered Securities

Dealers should begin planning as soon as possible any internal or operational changes that may be needed to comply with the amendments. The Depository Trust Company (DTC) has announced plans for a full-scale program of converting interchangeable securities now held in bearer form to registered form beginning on September 18, 1988.[10] When possible, DTC plans to retain a small supply of bearer certificates in interchangeable issues to accommodate withdrawal requests for bearer certificates.[11] The general effect of the amendments and DTC's policy, however, will make it difficult for dealers, in certain cases, to ensure that their customers will receive bearer certificates. Dealers should educate customers who now prefer bearer certificates on the call notification and interest payment benefits offered by registered certificates and dealer safekeeping and advise them when it is unlikely that bearer certificates can be obtained in a particular transaction. Dealers safekeeping municipal securities through DTC on behalf of such customers also may wish to review with those customers DTC's new arrangements for interchangeable securities.

[1] See SEC Release No. 34-25489 (March 18, 1988); MSRB Reports Vol. 8, no. 2 (March 1988), at 3.

[2] The amendments should substantially reduce delays in physical deliveries that result because of dealer questions about whether specific certificates should be in bearer form. This efficiency would be impossible if these "one-way" interchangeable securities were excluded from the amendments since dealers would be required to determine, for each physical delivery of registered securities, whether the securities are "one-way" interchangeable securities.

[3] Rule G-17, on fair dealing, requires dealers to disclose all material facts about a transaction to a customer at or before the time of trade. In many cases, the conversion fee is as much as $15 for each bearer certificate. The Board also has been made aware of some cases in which the transfer agent must obtain new printing plates or print new bearer certificates to effect a conversion. The conversion costs then may be in excess of several hundred or a thousand dollars. Therefore, it is important that the customer be aware of the amount of the conversion costs prior to agreeing to pay for them.

[4] This rule requires that, in addition to any other information required on the confirmation, the dealer must include "such other information as may be necessary to ensure that the parties agree on the details of the transaction."

[5] Rule G-15(a)(i)(I) [currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)] requires the yield of a customer transaction to be shown on the confirmation.

[6] Some customers, for example, may ask dealers to convert registered securities to bearer form even though the customers also may be willing to accept registered certificates if this is more economical.

[7] Rule G-12(f)(ii) requires book-entry settlement of an inter-dealer municipal securities transaction if both dealers (or their clearing agents for the transaction) are members of a depository making the securities eligible and the transaction is compared through a registered securities clearing agency. Rule G-15(d)(iii) requires book-entry settlement of a customer transaction if the dealer grants delivery versus payment or receipt versus payment privileges on the transaction and both the dealer and the customer (or the clearing agents for the transaction) are members of a depository making the securities eligible.

[8] These rules require that, in addition to the other information required on inter-dealer and customer confirmation, confirmations must include "such other information as may be necessary to ensure that the parties agree to the details of the transaction."

[9] Of course, dealers may withdraw physical certificates from a depository once a book-entry delivery is accepted.

[10] DTC expects this conversion process to take approximately two years. Midwest Securities Trust Company and The Philadelphia Depository Trust Company have not yet announced their plans with regard to interchangeable securities.

[11] DTC Notice to Participants on Plans for Comprehensive Conversion of Interchangeable Municipal Bonds to the Registered Form (August 10, 1988).

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(8)]

In December 1984, the Board published a notice providing guidance to dealers in determining whether certain transactions are inter-dealer or customer transactions for purposes of Board rules. Since the publication of this notice, the Board has continued to receive reports that inter-dealer transactions sometimes are erroneously submitted to automated confirmation/affirmation systems for customer transactions. This practice reduces the efficiencies of automated clearance since these transactions fail to compare in the initial comparison cycle. The Board is re-publishing the notice to remind dealers of the need to submit inter-dealer and customer transactions to the correct automated clearance systems.

The Board recently has been advised that some members of the municipal securities industry are experiencing difficulties in determining the proper classification of a contra-party as a dealer or customer for purposes of automated comparison and confirmation. In particular, questions have arisen about the status of banks purchasing for their trust departments and dealers buying securities to be deposited in accumulation accounts for unit investment trusts. Because a misclassification of a contra-party can cause significant difficulty to persons seeking to comply with the automated clearance requirements of rules G-12, and G-15, the Board believes that guidance concerning the appropriate classification of contra-parties in certain transactions would be helpful to the municipal securities industry.

Background

Rule G-12(f)(i) requires dealers to submit an inter-dealer transaction for automated comparison if the transaction is eligible for automated comparison .... Rule G-15(d)(ii) requires dealers to use an automated confirmation/affirmation service for delivery versus payment or receipt versus payment (DVP/RVP) customer transactions if the [transactions are eligible for automated confirmation and acknowledgement].

The systems available for the automated comparison of inter-dealer transactions and automated confirmation/affirmation of customer transactions are separate and distinct. As a result, misclassification of a contra-party may frustrate efficient use of the systems. For example, a selling dealer in an inter-dealer transaction may misclassify the contra-party as a customer, and submit the trade for confirmation/affirmation through the automated system for customer transactions while the purchaser (correctly considering itself to be a dealer) seeks to compare the transaction through the inter-dealer comparison system. Since, the automated systems for inter-dealer and customer transactions are entirely separate, the transaction will not be successfully compared or acknowledged through either automated system.

Transactions Effected by Banks

The Board has received certain questions about the proper classification of contra-parties in the context of transactions effected by banks. A bank may be the purchaser or seller of municipal securities either as a dealer or as a customer. For example, a dealer may sell municipal securities to a bank's trust department for various trust accounts. Such purchases by a bank in a fiduciary capacity would not constitute "municipal securities dealer activities" under the Board's rules[1] and are properly classified and confirmed as customer transactions. A second type of transaction by a bank is the purchase or sale of securities for the dealer trading account of a dealer bank. The bank in this instance clearly is acting in its capacity as a municipal securities dealer and the transaction should be compared as an inter-dealer transaction.

A dealer effecting a transaction with a dealer bank may not know whether the bank is acting in its capacity as a dealer or as a customer. The Board is of the view that, in such a case, the dealer should ascertain the appropriate classification of the bank at the time of trade to ensure that the transaction can be compared or confirmed appropriately. The Board anticipates that dealer banks will assist in this process by informing contra-parties whether the bank is acting as a dealer or customer in transactions in which the bank's role may be unclear to the contra-party.

Transactions by Dealer Purchasing Municipal Securities for UIT Accumulation Accounts

The Board has also received several inquiries concerning the appropriate classification of a dealer who purchases municipal securities to be deposited into an accumulation account for ultimate transfer to a unit investment trust (UIT). The dealer buying securities for a UIT accumulation account may purchase and hold the securities over a period of several days before depositing them with the trustee of the UIT in exchange for all of the units of the trust; during this time the dealer is exposed to potential market risk on these securities positions. The subsequent deposit of the securities with the trustee of the UIT in exchange for the units of the trust may be viewed as a separate, customer transaction between the dealer buying the accumulation account and the trust. The original purchase of the securities by the dealer for the account then must be considered an inter-dealer transaction since the dealer is purchasing for its own account ultimately to execute a customer transaction. The Board notes that the SEC has taken this approach in applying its net capital and customer protection rules to such transactions.

The Board is of the view that, for purposes of its automated comparison requirements, transactions involving dealers purchasing for UIT accumulation accounts should be considered inter-dealer transactions. The Board also notes the distinction between this situation, in which a dealer purchases for ultimate transfer to a trust or fund, and situations where purchases or sales of municipal securities are made directly by the fund, as is the case with purchases or sales by some open-end mutual funds. These latter transactions should be considered as customer transactions and confirmed accordingly.

Other Inter-Dealer Transactions

In addition to questions on the status of a dealer bank and dealers purchasing for accumulation accounts, the Board has received information that a few large firms are sometimes subtracting trades with regional securities dealers into the customer confirmation system. The Board is aware that these firms may classify transactions with regional dealers or bank dealers as "customer" transactions for purposes of internal accounting and compensation systems. The Board reminds industry members that transactions with other municipal securities dealers will always be inter-dealer transactions and should be compared in the inter-dealer automated comparison system without regard to how the transactions are classified internally within a dealer's accounting systems. The Board believes it is incumbent upon those firms who misclassify transactions in this fashion to promptly make the necessary alterations to their internal systems to ensure that this practice of misclassifying transactions is corrected.

[1] Section 3(a)(30) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 defines a bank to be a municipal securities dealers if it "is engaged in the business of buying and selling municipal securities for its own account other than in a fiduciary capacity." For purposes of the Board's rule G-1, defining a separately identifiable department or division of a bank dealer, the purchase and sale of municipal securities by a trust department would not be considered to be "municipal securities dealer activities."

NOTE: Revised to reflect subsequent amendments.

The Board is concerned that the market for escrowed-to-maturity securities has been disrupted by uncertainty whether these securities may be called pursuant to optional redemption provisions. Accordingly, the Board has issued the following interpretations of rule G-17, on fair dealing, and rules G-12(c) and G-15(a), on confirmation disclosure, concerning escrowed-to-maturity securities. The interpretations are effective immediately.

Background

Traditionally, the term escrowed-to-maturity has meant that such securities are not subject to optional redemption prior to maturity. Investors and market professionals have relied on this understanding in their purchases and sales of such securities. Recently, certain issuers have attempted to call escrowed-to-maturity securities. As a result, investors and market professionals considering transactions in escrowed-to-maturity securities must review the documents for the original issue, for any refunding issue, as well as the escrow agreement and state law, to determine whether any optional redemption provisions apply. In addition, the Board understands that there is uncertainly as to the fair market price of such securities which may cause harm to investors.

On March 17, 1987, the Board sent letters to the Public Securities Association, the Government Finance Officers Association and the National Association of Bond Lawyers expressing its concern. The Board stated that it is essential that issuers, when applicable, expressly note in official statements and defeasance notices relating to escrowed-to-maturity securities whether they have reserved the right to call such securities. It stated that the absence of such express disclosure would raise concerns whether the issuer’s disclosure documents adequately explain the material features of the issue and would severely damage investor confidence in the municipal securities market. Although the Board has no rulemaking authority over issuers, it advised brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers (dealers) that assist issuers in preparing disclosure documents for escrowed-to-maturity securities to alert these issuers of the need to disclose whether they have reserved the right to call the securities since such information is material to a customer’s investment decision about the securities and to the efficient trading of such securities.

Application of Rule G-17 on Fair Dealing

In the intervening months since the Board’s letter, the Board has continued to receive inquiries from market participants concerning the callability of escrowed-to-maturity securities. Apparently, some dealers now are describing all escrowed-to-maturity securities as callable and there is confusion how to price such securities. In order to avoid confusion with respect to issues that might be escrowed-to-maturity in the future, the Board is interpreting rule G-17, on fair dealing,[1] to require that municipal securities dealers that assist in the preparation of refunding documents as underwriters or financial advisors alert issuers of the materiality of information relating to the callability of escrowed-to-maturity securities. Accordingly, such dealers must recommend that issuers clearly state when the refunded securities will be redeemed and whether the issuer reserves the option to redeem the securities prior to their maturity.

Application of Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) on Confirmation Disclosure of Escrowed-to-Maturity Securities

Rules G-12(c)(vi)(E) and G-15(a)(iii)(E)[*] require dealers to disclose on inter-dealer and customer confirmations, respectively, whether the securities are "called" or "prerefunded," the date of maturity which has been fixed by the call notice, and the call price. The Board has stated that this paragraph would require, in the case of escrowed-to-maturity securities, a statement to that effect (which would also meet the requirement to state "the date of maturity which has been fixed") and the amount to be paid at redemption. In addition, rules G-12(c)(v)(E) and G-15(a)(i)(E)[†] require dealers to note on confirmations if securities are subject to redemption prior to maturity (callable).

The Board understands that dealers traditionally have used the term escrowed-to-maturity only for non-callable advance refunded issues the proceeds of which are escrowed to original maturity date or for escrowed-to-maturity issues with mandatory sinking fund calls. To avoid confusion in the use of the term escrowed-to-maturity, the Board has determined that dealers should use the term escrowed-to-maturity to describe on confirmations only those issues with no optional redemption provisions expressly reserved in escrow and refunding documents. Escrowed-to-maturity issues with no optional or mandatory call features must be described as "escrowed-to-maturity." Escrowed-to-maturity issues subject to mandatory sinking fund calls must be described as "escrowed-to-maturity" and "callable." If an issue is advance refunded to the original maturity date, but the issuer expressly reserves optional redemption features, the security should be described on confirmations as "escrowed (or prerefunded) to [the actual maturity date]" and "callable."[2]

The Board believes that the use of different terminology to describe advance refunded issues expressly subject to optional calls will better alert dealers and customers to this important aspect of certain escrowed issues.[3]

[1] Rule G-17 states that "[i]n the conduct of its municipal securities business, each broker, dealer, and municipal securities dealer shall deal fairly with all persons and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice."

[2] This terminology also would be used for any issue prerefunded to a call date, with an earlier optional call expressly reserved.

[3] The Board believes that, because of the small number of advance refunded issues that expressly reserve the right of the issuer to call the issue pursuant to an optional redemption provision, confirmation systems should be able to be programmed for use of the new terminology without delay.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(3)(a). See also current rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(3)(b).]

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(C)(2)(a).]

Rules G-12(e)(x) and G-15(c)(viii) on deliveries of called securities provide that a certificate for which a notice of partial call has been published does not constitute good delivery unless it was identified as called at the time of trade. The rules also provide that, if a notice of call affecting an entire issue has been published on or prior to the trade date, called securities do not constitute good delivery unless identified as such at the time of trade.[1] Thus, a dealer, in some instances, must determine the date that a notice of call is published (the "publication date") to determine whether delivery of a called certificate constitutes good delivery for a particular transaction. The Board has adopted the following interpretation of rules G-12(e)(x) and G-15(e)(viii) to assist the industry in determining the publication date of a notice of a call. The Board understands this interpretation to be consistent with the procedure currently being used by certain depositories in allocating the results of partial calls.

In general, the publication date of a notice of call is the date of the edition of the publication in which the issuer, the issuer's agent or the trustee publishes the notice. To qualify as a notice of call under the rules, a notice must contain the date of the early redemption, and, for partial calls, must contain information that specifically identifies the certificates being called. If a notice of call is published on more than one date, the earliest date of publication constitutes the publication date for purposes of the rules.

If a notice of call for a registered security is not published, but is sent to registered owners, the publication date is the date shown on the notice. If no date is shown on the notice, the issuer, the trustee or the appropriate agent of the issuer should be contacted to determine the date of the notice of call.

If a notice of call of a registered security is published and also is sent directly to registered owners, the publication date is the earlier of the actual publication date or the date shown on the notice sent to registered owners. For bearer securities, the first date of publication always constitutes the publication date, even if another date is shown on the notice.

[1] An inter-dealer delivery that does not meet these requirements may be rejected or reclaimed under rule G-12(g).

Disclosure of pricing: calculating the dollar price of partially prerefunded bonds. This is in response to your March 21, 1986 letter concerning the application of Board rules to the description of municipal securities provided at or prior to the time of trade and the application of rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) on calculating the dollar price of partially prerefunded bonds with mandatory sinking fund calls.

You describe an issue, due 10/1/13. Mandatory sinking fund calls for this issue begin 10/1/05 and end 10/1/13. Recently, a partial refunding took place which prerefunds the 2011, 2012 and 2013 mandatory sinking fund requirements totalling $11,195,000 (which is 43.6% of the issue) to 10/1/94 at 102. The certificate numbers for the partial prerefunding will not be chosen until 30 days prior to the prerefunded date. Thus, a large percentage of the bonds are prerefunded and all the bonds will be redeemed by 10/1/10 because the 2011, 2012, and 2013 maturities no longer exist.

You note that the bonds should be described as partially prerefunded to 10/1/94 with a 10/1/10 maturity. Also, you state that the price of these securities should be calculated to the cheapest call, in this case, the partial prerefunded date of 10/1/94 at 102. You add that there is a 9½ point difference in price between calculating to maturity and to the partially prerefunded date.

You note that the descriptions you have seen on various brokers' wires do not accurately describe these securities and a purchaser of these bonds would not know what they bought if the purchase was based on current descriptions. You ask the Board to address the description and calculation problems posed by this issue.

Your letter was referred to a Committee of the Board which has responsibility for interpreting the Board's fair practice rules. That Committee has authorized this response.

Board rule G-17 provides that

In the conduct of its municipal securities business, each broker, dealer, and municipal securities dealer shall deal fairly with all persons and shall not engage in any deceptive, dishonest, or unfair practice.

In regard to inter-dealer transactions, the items of information that professionals must exchange at or prior to the time of trade are governed by principles of contract law and essentially are those items necessary adequately to describe the security that is the subject of the contract. As a general matter, these items of information do not encompass all material facts, but should be sufficient to distinguish the security from other similar issues. The Board has interpreted rule G-17 to require dealers to treat other dealers fairly and to hold them to the prevailing ethical standards of the industry. [1] The rule also prohibits dealers from knowingly misdescribing securities to another dealer. [2]

Board rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) require that

where a transaction is effected on a yield basis, the dollar price shall be calculated to the lowest of price to call, price to par option, or price to maturity ...

In addition, for customer confirmations, rule G-15(a) requires that

for transactions effected on the basis of dollar price, ... the lowest of the resulting yield to call, yield to par option, or yield to maturity shall be shown....

These provisions also require, in cases in which the resulting dollar price or yield shown on the confirmation is calculated to call or par option, that this must be stated and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown. The Board has determined that, for purposes of making this computation, only "in-whole" calls should be used. [3] This requirement reflects the longstanding practice of the municipal securities industry that a price calculated to an "in-part" call, for example, a partial prerefunding date, is not adequate because, depending on the probability of the call provision being exercised and the portion of the issue subject to the call provision, the effective yield based on the price to a partial prerefunding date may not bear any relation to the likely return on the investment.

These provisions of Rules G-12(c) and G-15(a) apply, however, only when the parties have not specified that the bonds are priced to a specific call date. In some circumstances, the parties to a particular transaction may agree that the transaction is effected on the basis of a yield to a particular date, e.g., a partial prerefunding date, and that the dollar price will be computed in this fashion. If that is the case, the yield to this agreed upon date must be included on confirmations as the yield at which the transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price computed to that date, together with a statement that it is a "yield to [date]." In an August 1979 interpretive notice on pricing of callable securities, the Board stated that, under rule G-30, a dealer pricing securities sold to a customer on the basis of a yield to a specified call feature should take into account the possibility that the call feature may not be exercised. [4]

Accordingly, the price to be paid by the customer should reflect this possibility, and the resulting yield to maturity should bear a reasonable relationship to yields on securities of similar quality and maturity. Failure to price securities in such a manner may constitute a violation of rule G-30 since the price may not be "fair and reasonable" in the event the call feature is not exercised. The Board also noted that the fact that a customer in these circumstances may realize a yield in excess of the yield at which the transaction was effected does not relieve a municipal securities dealer of its responsibilities under rule G-30.

Accordingly, the calculation of the dollar price of a transaction in the securities you describe, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, should be made to the lowest of price to the first in-whole call, par option, or maturity. While the partial prerefunding effectively redeems the issue by 10/1/10, the stated maturity of the bond is 10/1/13 and, subject to the parties agreeing to price to 10/1/10, the stated maturity date should be used. MSRB interpretation of May 15, 1986.

[1] In addition, the Board has interpreted this rule to require that, in connection with the purchase from or sale of a municipal security to a customer, at or before execution of the transaction, a dealer must disclose all material facts concerning the transaction which could affect the customer's investment decision, including a complete description of the security, and not omit any material facts which would render other statements misleading.

[2] While the Board does not have any specific disclosure requirements applicable to dealers at the time of trade, a dealer is free to disclose any unique aspect of an issue. For example, in the issue described above, a dealer may decide to disclose the "effective" maturity date of 2010, as well as the stated maturity date of 2013.

[3] See [Rule G-15 Interpretation - Notice Concerning Pricing to Call], December 10, 1980 ... at ¶ 3571.

[4] See [Rule G-30 Interpretation - Interpretive Notice on Pricing of Callable Securities] August 10, 1979 ... at ¶ 3646.

Callable securities: pricing to mandatory sinking fund calls. This is in response to your February 21, 1986 letter concerning the application of rule G-15(a) regarding pricing to prerefunded bonds with mandatory sinking fund calls.

You give the following example:

Bonds, due 7/1/10, are prerefunded to 7/1/91 at 102. There are $17,605,000 of these bonds outstanding. However, there is a mandatory sinking fund which will operate to call $1,000,000 of these bonds at par every year from 7/1/86 to 7/1/91. The balance ($11,605,000) then will be redeemed 7/1/91 at 102. If this bond is priced to the 1991 prerefunded date in today's market at a 6.75 yield, the dollar price would be approximately 127.94. However, if this bond is called 7/1/86 at 100 and a customer paid the above price, his/her yield would be a minus 52 percent (-52%) on the called portion.

You state that the correct way to price the bond is to the 7/1/86 par call at a 5% level which equates to an approximate dollar price of 102.61. The subsequent yield to the 7/1/91 at 102 prerefunded date would be 12.33% if the bond survived all the mandatory calls to that date. You note that a June 8, 1978, MSRB interpretation states, "the calculation of dollar price to a premium call or par option date should be to that date at which the issuer may exercise an option to call the whole of a particular issue or, in the case of serial bonds, a particular maturity, and not to the date of a call in-part." You believe, however, that, as the rule is presently written, dealers are leaving themselves open for litigation from customers if bonds, which are trading at a premium, are not priced to the mandatory sinking fund call. You ask that the Board review this interpretation.

Your letter was referred to a Committee of the Board which has responsibility for interpreting the Board's fair practice rules. That Committee has authorized this response.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(I)[*] requires that on customer confirmations the yield and dollar price for the transaction be disclosed as the price (if the transaction is done on a yield basis) or yield (if the transaction is done on the basis of the dollar price) calculated to the lowest price or yield to call, to par option, or to maturity. The provision also requires, in cases in which the resulting dollar price or yield shown on the confirmation is calculated to call or par option, that this must be stated and the call or option date and price used in the calculation must be shown. The Board has determined that, for purposes of making this computation, only "in-whole" calls should be used.[1] This requirement reflects the longstanding practice of the municipal securities industry that a price calculated to an "in-part" call, such as a sinking fund call, is not adequate because, depending on the probability of the call provision being exercised and the portion of the issue subject to the call provision, the effective yield based on the price to a sinking fund date may not bear any relation to the likely return on the investment.

Rule G-15(a)(i)(I)[*] applies, however, only when the parties have not specified that the bonds are priced to a specific call date. In some circumstances, the parties to a particular transaction may agree that the transaction is effected on the basis of a yield to a particular date, e.g. put option date, and that the dollar price will be computed in this fashion. If that is the case, the yield to this agreed upon date must be included on confirmations as the yield at which the transaction was effected and the resulting dollar price computed to that date, together with a statement that it is a "yield to [date]." In an August 1979 interpretive notice on pricing of callable securities, the Board stated that, under rule G-30, a dealer pricing securities on the basis of a yield to a specified call feature should take into account the possibility that the call feature may not be exercised.[2] Accordingly, the price to be paid by the customer should reflect this possibility, and the resulting yield to maturity should bear a reasonable relationship to yields on securities of similar quality and maturity. Failure to price securities in such a manner may constitute a violation of rule G-30 since the price may not be "fair and reasonable" in the event the call feature is not exercised. The Board also noted that the fact that a customer in these circumstances may realize a yield in excess of the yield at which the transaction was effected does not relieve a municipal securities dealer of its responsibilities under rule G-30.

Accordingly, the calculation of the dollar price of a transaction in the securities in your example, unless the parties have agreed otherwise, should be made to the prerefunded date. Of course, under rule G-17 on fair dealing, dealers must explain to customers the existence of sinking fund calls at the time of trade. The sinking fund call, in addition, should be disclosed on the confirmation by an indication that the securities are "callable." The fact that the securities are prerefunded also should be noted on the confirmation. MSRB Interpretation of April 30, 1986.

[1] See [Rule G-15 Interpretation - Notice Concerning Pricing to Call], December 10, 1980 at ¶ 3571.

[2] See [Rule G-30 Interpretation - Interpretive Notice on Pricing of Callable Securities], August 10, 1979 ... at ¶ 3646.

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-15(a)(i)(A)(5)]