Select regulatory documents by category:
Back to top
Notice 2022-13 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Issuers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-3

All Comments to Notice 2022-13

  1. National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated January 30, 2023
  2. Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated January 30, 2023
  3. Wulff, Hansen & Co.: Letter from Chris Charles, President, dated December 29, 2022
Notice 2016-24 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Municipal Advisors

Rule Number:

Rule G-3

1.  Breena LLC: E-mail from G. Letti dated September 30, 2016

2.  Castle Advisory Company LLC: E-mail from Garth Schulz dated September 30, 2016

3.  Columbia Capital Management, LLC: Letter from Jeff White, Principal, dated November 11, 2016

4.  Financial Services Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, dated November 14, 2016

5.  Lamont Financial Services Corporation: Letter from Robert A. Lamb, President, dated October 21, 2016

6.  Lawrence Goldberg: E-mail dated September 30, 2016

7.  National Association of Municipal Advisors: Letter from Susan Gaffney, Executive Director, dated November 14, 2016

8.  PFM Group: Letter from Leo Karwejna, Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, dated November 14, 2016

9.  Public Resources Advisory Group: Letter from Marianne F. Edmonds, Senior Managing Director, dated November 14, 2016

10.  Roberts Consulting, LLC: E-mail from Jonathan Roberts dated October 14, 2016

11.  Third Party Marketers Association: Letter from Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors, dated November 17, 2016

Notice 2014-08 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers, Municipal Advisors


1.  Arrow Partners: Letter from Steven Rubenstein dated May 16, 2014

2.  Association of Registration Management: Letter from Michele Van Tassel, President, dated May 16, 2014

3.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated May 16, 2014

4.  Cedar Partners Ltd: Letter from Christy Ping, Director/Chief Compliance Officer, dated May 16, 2014

5.  Central States Capital Markets: E-mail from Mark Detter dated April 17, 2014

6.  CFA Institute: Letter from Inigo Bengoechea, Director, and Dan Larocco, Manager, dated April 25, 2014

7.  Compass Securities Corporation: Letter from John R. Ahern, President

8.  Dixworks LLC: E-mail from Dennis Dix, Jr. dated April 11, 2014

9.  Fitzgibbon Toigo Associates, LLC: E-mail from Brian X. Fitzgibbon dated May 16, 2014

10.  Fortress Group, Inc.: Letter from Bruce A. Williamson, Managing Director and Chief Compliance Officer, dated May 16, 2014

11.  Frank Taylor: E-mail dated March 19, 2014

12.  George K. Baum & Company: Letter from Guy E. Yandel, EVP Public Finance, Dana L. Bjornson, EVP and Chief Compliance Officer, and Andrew F. Sears, SVP and General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

13.  Government Credit Corporation: E-mail from Joseph Mooney dated March 18, 2014

14.  Hamersley Partners, LLC: Letter from Andrew Phillips, Principal and CCO, dated May 16, 2014

15.  IMMS LLC: E-mail from John Daly dated May 16, 2014

16.  Investment Company Institute: Letter from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, dated May 8, 2014

17.  Jorge Rosso: E-mail dated April 3, 2014

18.  Monahan & Roth, LLC: Letter from Lisa Roth, President, dated May 16, 2014

19.  MVision Private Equity Advisers USA LLC: Letter from Victoria Sherliker, General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

20.  National Association of Independent Public Finance Advisors: Letter from Jeanine Rodgers Caruso, President, dated May 16, 2014

21.  New Albany Capital Partners, LLC: Letter from Rick Wayman dated May 14, 2014

22.  Oyster River Capital LP: Letter from Richard A. Murphy dated May 16, 2014

23.  Perkins Fund Marketing LLC: Letter from Gilman C. Perkins, Principal and Managing Member, dated May 16, 2014

24.  Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.: Letter from Alexis F. Warmath, Vice President, and Christopher P.N. Woodcock, President, Woodcock & Associates, Inc., dated May 16, 2014

25.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from Leslie M. Norwood, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated May 16, 2014

26.  Sonja Sullivan: E-mail dated May 16, 2014

27.  Stacy Havener: E-mail dated May 16, 2014

28.  Stonehaven: Letter from Steven Jafarzadeh, Managing Director and Partner, dated May 16, 2014

29.  Tessera Capital Partners: Letter from Donna DiMaria, CEO/CCO, dated May 16, 2014

30.  Third Party Marketers Association: Letter from Donna DiMaria, Chairman of the Board of Directors, dated May 16, 2014

31. Tibor Partners Inc.: E-mail from William Johnston dated March 18, 2014

32. Timothy D. Wasson: Letter

33.  Yuba Group: Letter from Linda Fan, Managing Partner, dated April 28, 2014

34.  Zions First National Bank: Letter from W. David Hemingway, Executive Vice President, dated May 16, 2014

35.  Zions First National Bank: Letter from James G. Livingston, Senior Vice President, dated May 16, 2014

Notice 2013-22 - Request for Comment
Publication date: | Comment due:
Information for:

Bank Dealers, Dealers


1.  Bartholomew, Patricia E., 2014 Chair, Securities Industry Council on Continuing Education, and Bartol, William E., 2013 Chair, Securities Industry Council on Continuing Education: Letter dated January 13, 2014

2.  Bond Dealers of America: Letter from Michael Nicholas, Chief Executive Officer, dated January 13, 2014

3.  Diamant Investment Corporation: E-mail from Herbert Diamant dated December 13, 2013

4.  Financial Services Institute: Letter from David T. Bellaire, Executive Vice President and General Counsel, dated January 13, 2014

5.  Investment Company Institute: Letter from Tamara K. Salmon, Senior Associate Counsel, dated January 13, 2014

6.  MetLife Securities, Inc.: Letter from Jennifer Lewis, Corporate Counsel, dated January 13, 2014

7.  National Society of Compliance Professionals: Letter from Judy Werner, Executive Director, dated January 14, 2014

8.  Romano Wealth Management: E-mail from Joe Romano dated January 13, 2014

9.  RW Smith & Associates, Inc.: E-mail from Paige Pierce dated January 13, 2014

10.  Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association: Letter from David L. Cohen, Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, dated January 13, 2014

11.  Wulff, Hansen & Co.: Letter from Chris Charles, President, dated January 9, 2014

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Financial Advisory Relationship: Private Placements

Financial advisory relationship: private placements. This is in response to your letter in which you seek clarification on certain matters related to rules G-23, on activities of financial advisors, and G-37, on political contributions and prohibitions on municipal securities business.

You ask when it is "necessary in the process of commencing preliminary work with a potential financial advisory client to enter into a formal written financial advisory contract." Rule G-23(c) states that "[e]ach financial advisory relationship shall be evidenced by a writing entered into prior to, upon or promptly after the inception of the financial advisory relationship (or promptly after the creation or selection of the issuer if the issuer does not exist or has not been determined at the time the relationship commences)." Rule G-23(b) states that "...a financial advisory relationship shall be deemed to exist when a broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory or consultant services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities, including advice with respect to the structure, timing, terms and other similar matters concerning such issue or issues, for a fee or other compensation or in expectation of such compensation for the rendering of such services."

You ask whether you are to advise the Board by means of reporting on Form G-37/G-38 or by any other means when you commence work on subsequent financing transactions with an issuer with which your firm has an ongoing financial advisory contract. The Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 provide a guideline to use in determining when to report financial advisory services on Form G-37/G-38.[1] Pursuant to these Instructions, dealers should indicate financial advisory services when an agreement is reached to provide the services. In addition, the Instructions note that dealers also should indicate financial advisory services during a reporting period when the settlement date for a new issue on which the dealer acted as financial advisor occurred during such period. There are no other requirements for reporting financial advisory services to the Board.

Finally, you ask whether rules G-23 or G-37 contain requirements concerning private placement activities. The term "municipal securities business" is defined in rule G-37 to include "the offer or sale of a primary offering of municipal securities on behalf of any issuer ( e.g. , private placement)..." The Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 provide that private placements should be indicated at least by the settlement date if within the reporting period.

With respect to rule G-23, section (d) of the rule states that no dealer that has a financial advisory relationship with respect to a new issue of municipal securities shall acquire as principal either alone or as a participant in a syndicate or other similar account formed for the purpose of purchasing, directly or indirectly, from the issuer all or any portion of such issue, or act as agent for the issuer in arranging the placement of such issue, unless various actions are taken.[2] In addition, rule G-23(g) states that each dealer subject to the provisions of sections (d), (e) or (f) of rule G-23 shall maintain a copy of the written disclosures, acknowledgments and consents required by these sections in a separate file and in accordance with the provisions of rule G-9, on preservation of records. Finally, rule G-23(h) states that, if a dealer acquires new issue municipal securities or participates in a syndicate or other account that acquires new issue municipal securities in accordance with section (d) of rule G-23, such dealer shall disclose the existence of the financial advisory relationship in writing to each customer who purchases such securities from such dealer, at or before the completion of the transaction with the customer. MSRB interpretation of October 5, 1999.

[1] I have enclosed a copy of the Instructions for Completing and Filing Form G-37/G-38 as contained in the MSRB Rule Book. The instructions are also contained on the Board's web site (www.msrb.org) under the link for rule G-37.

[2] These actions are: (i) if such issue is to be sold by the issuer on a negotiated basis, (A) the financial advisory relationship with respect to such issue has been terminated in writing and at or after such termination the issuer has expressly consented in writing to such acquisition or participation, as principal or agent, in the purchase of the securities on a negotiated basis; (B) the dealer has expressly disclosed in writing to the issuer at or before such termination that there may be a conflict of interest in changing from the capacity of financial advisor to purchaser of or placement agent for the securities with respect to which the financial advisory relationship exists and the issuer has expressly acknowledged in writing to the dealer receipt of such disclosure; and (C) the dealer has expressly disclosed in writing to the issuer at or before such termination the source and anticipated amount of all remuneration to the dealer with respect to such issue in addition to the compensation referred to in section (c) of rule G-23, and the issuer has expressly acknowledged in writing to the dealer receipt of such disclosure; or (ii) if such issue is to be sold by the issuer at competitive bid, the issuer has expressly consented in writing prior to the bid to such acquisition or participation.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Execution of Infrequent Unsolicited Orders
Rule Number:

Rule G-2, Rule G-3

Execution of infrequent unsolicited orders. This is in response to your letter in which you state that your firm is a discount broker that executes orders on an unsolicited basis and that occasionally a customer will approach your firm to sell a municipal security they own or to purchase a specific issue.  You ask that the Board give consideration to allowing a firm like yours to act as a broker/dealer for customers on an unsolicited basis without being required to have an associated person qualified as a municipal securities principal.

Rule G-2, on standards of professional qualification, states that no dealer shall effect any transaction in, or induce or attempt to induce the purchase or sale of, any municipal security unless such dealer and every natural person associated with such dealer is qualified in accordance with the rules of the Board.  Rule G-3, on professional qualifications, states that a dealer that conducts a general securities business shall have at least one associated person qualified as a municipal securities principal to supervise the dealer’s municipal securities activities.

The Board’s rules do not provide an exemption from the numerical requirements for municipal securities principals based on the type of transactions in municipal securities in which a dealer engages.  There also is no exemption from the Board’s rules based on a de minimus number of transactions in municipal securities.  MSRB interpretation of October 2, 1998.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Municipal Securities Principal: MSRB Registered Dealer
Rule Number:

Rule G-3

Municipal securities principal: MSRB registered dealer. This is in response to your March 21, 1994 letter to [name deleted] of the National Association of Securities Dealers, a copy of which you sent to my attention. The issue in question is whether [name deleted] (the “Dealer”) is required at this time to have someone qualified as a municipal securities principal.

You note in your letter that the activities that the Dealer will be engaging in currently do not involve municipal securities, therefore, you concluded that the Dealer is not subject to the Board’s requirement that the dealer have at least one municipal securities principal.

Board rules apply only to brokers, dealers and municipal securities dealers who have registered as such with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and who engage in municipal securities activities. A dealer “registers” with the Board, pursuant to rule A-12, on the Board’s initial fee, by submitting a letter with certain information and paying the … initial fee along with the … annual fee pursuant to rule A-14, on the Board’s annual fee. Rule A-12 requires that the information and fee be submitted to the Board prior to the dealer engaging in municipal securities activities. Once a dealer is “registered” with the Board all Board rules are applicable to that dealer including the requirement in rule G-3, on professional qualifications, that every dealer shall have at least one municipal securities principal.[1]

Regardless of whether the Dealer is currently engaging in municipal securities activities, the dealer has “registered” with the Board and is subject to the Board’s requirement that the dealer have a municipal securities principal.[2]  If the Dealer determines that it does not wish to remain “registered” with the Board upon its conclusion that it is not engaging in municipal securities activities, rule A-15(a), on notification to Board of termination, requires that the Dealer submit a letter to the Board with a statement of its termination. In the future, should the dealer remain a registered broker or dealer with the SEC and make a determination that it will be engaging in municipal securities activities, the dealer will have to “register” with the Board pursuant to the requirements of rules A-12 and A-14 prior to engaging in municipal securities activities and, of course, meet the Board’s numerical requirements concerning municipal securities principals. MSRB interpretation of March 30, 1994.


[1]  Rule G-3(b)(iii) requires that a dealer have two municipal securities principals if the dealer performs only municipal securities activities and it employs eleven or more persons associated with it in whatever capacity on a full-time or full-time equivalent basis who are engaged in the performance of its municipal securities activities.

[2]   I have enclosed a copy of the December 14, 1993 letter you submitted to the Board pursuant to rule A-12.

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Supervision of Data Processing Functions
Rule Number:

Rule G-3

Supervision of data processing functions.  I am writing in response to your letter of November 7, 1988 and our subsequent telephone conversation by which you requested an interpretation of the Board’s qualification requirements for municipal securities principals. You asked whether an individual, who is presently qualified as a representative, additionally must be qualified as a municipal securities principal because he has oversight and supervisory responsibility for the firm’s data processing department.

Board rule G-3(a)(i)[*] defines a municipal securities principal as a person directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of one or more enumerated representative activities. Consequently, whether or not this individual must be qualified as a municipal securities principal depends on whether he is supervising such activities, i.e., whether the data processing department employees are functioning as municipal securities representatives.

You state that the data processing department assists this individual by performing the calculations necessary in the structuring of municipal bond issues and underwritings. Moreover, you note that the employees in the data processing department do not communicate with customers, including issuers, in carrying out their duties and that the above financial advisory and underwriting activities are otherwise supervised by a qualified municipal securities principal.

Based upon the facts set forth above, we are of the view that the individual described supervises only  clerical or ministerial functions, and he is therefore not a municipal securities principal within the meaning of Board rule G-3. MSRB interpretation of December 9, 1988.


[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(b)(i)]

Interpretive Guidance - Interpretive Letters
Publication date:
Supervisory Structure
Rule Number:

Rule G-3, Rule G-27

Supervisory structure.  This is in response to your letter of December 31, 1986 and our subsequent telephone conversation. You note that there has been a recent reorganization within your bank. As a consequence, you, as the head of the dealer department, now will report to the bank officer who also is in charge of the trust department and the bank's investment portfolio, rather than directly to the bank's president as had been the case. You ask whether this arrangement might constitute a conflict of interest under trust regulations or otherwise under Board rules.

Board rule G-27 places an obligation upon a dealer to supervise its municipal securities activities. It requires a dealer to accomplish this objective by designating individuals with supervisory responsibility for municipal securities activities and requires the dealer to adopt written supervisory procedures to this end. The rule does not specify how a dealer should structure its supervisory procedures, provided that the dealer adopts an organizational structure which meets the intent of the rule. You should review your dealer's written supervisory procedures to ensure that they provide for the appropriate delegation of supervisory responsibilities, given the reorganization within the bank.

You noted that the individual to whom you will be reporting is presently qualified as a municipal securities representative but not as a municipal securities principal. Board rule G-3(a)(i)[*] defines a municipal securities principal as an associated person of a securities firm or bank dealer who is directly engaged in the management, direction or supervision of municipal securities activities. If, under the new reorganization, this individual will be designated with day-to-day responsibility for the management, direction or supervision of the municipal securities activities of the dealer, then he must be qualified as a municipal securities principal.

Finally, trust regulations are governed by the appropriate banking law and not by Board rules. Consequently, any concerns that you may have with respect to possible conflicts of interest with trust regulations should be directed to the appropriate bank regulatory agency. MSRB interpretation of March 11, 1987.

 


 

[*] [Currently codified at rule G-3(b)(i).]