Indemnity agreement. This is in response to your letter dated March 18, 1981, regarding your client's (the "Bank") proposal to sell participations in industrial development bonds to one or more unit investment trusts or closed-end investment company (the "trust"), which bonds would be insured against default by the American Municipal Bond Assurance Corporation (AMBAC). Specifically you ask whether an agreement by the Bank to indemnify AMBAC to the extent of 25 percent of any losses suffered in the event of default would violate Board rule G-25(b) which generally prohibits a municipal securities dealer from guaranteeing a customer against loss in municipal securities transactions.

As you note in your letter, the Board has taken the position that a municipal securities bank dealer issuing a letter of credit which is publicly disclosed and for the benefit of all holders of the security would not violate the provisions of rule G-25(b). You state that the Bank’s agreement to indemnify AMBAC would be disclosed to and, at least indirectly would be for the benefit, of all investors.

Based upon the facts contained in your letter, it appears that the proposed agreement would not be prohibited by rule G-25(b). MSRB interpretation of March 26, 1981.

Financial advisory relationship: identity of issuer. This is in response to your letter of February 27, 1981, asking whether a dealer bank which is retained by the Board of Water Governors of a water utility owned by City X to provide advice regarding the structure, timing, and terms of a new issue of mortgage revenue bonds to be issued by City X has entered into a financial advisory agreement for purposes of rule G-23. You note that the bonds would be sold at a competitive underwriting and payable from the revenues of the water utility.

Under rule G-23, a financial advisory relationship is deemed to exist when a broker, dealer, or municipal securities dealer renders or enters into an agreement to render financial advisory services to or on behalf of an issuer with respect to a new issue or issues of municipal securities. Based solely upon the facts contained in your letter, it appears that the Board of Water Commissioners is a political subdivision of City X. It further appears that the Board of Water Governors entered into the financial advisory agreement for the specific purpose of obtaining advice regarding the new issue of bonds on behalf of the City. Thus, the fact that City X, rather than the Board of Water Governors, actually will issue the bonds would not itself support a conclusion that the financial advisory agreement is not subject to the provisions of rule G-23. MSRB interpretation of March 13, 1981.

Disclosure of underwriting spread. As you know, Board rule G-32 provides that a dealer selling new issue municipal securities must furnish its customers with certain information at or prior to sending final money confirmations. Under subparagraph (a)(ii) of the rule, in the case of a negotiated sale, the dealer must furnish certain specified information about the underwriting arrangements, including the "underwriting spread." The Board has interpreted this provision to require that the gross spread (i.e., the difference between the initial reoffering prices and the amount paid to the issuer) be shown. The Board has also indicated that the gross spread may be expressed either in dollars or in points per bond.

The Board recently issued an interpretation of rule G-32(a)(ii) to the effect that the underwriting spread may be expressed either as a total amount or as a listing of the components of the gross spread. Thus, for example, the following disclosure would meet the requirements of the rule:

Application of Proceeds

Construction Costs .............................................................$120,000,000

Underwriter’s discount[1]...........................................................2,500,000

Legal expenses ..........................................................................200,000

Printing and Miscellaneous expenses......................................... ..300,000

Principal amount of bonds ....................................................123,000,000

 Should you have any questions concerning this interpretation, please call me. MSRB interpretation of March 9, 1981.

Note: The above letter refers to the text of rule G-32 as in effect prior to amendments effective on August 30, 1985.

[1] If a dealer expresses the underwriting spread as a listing of the components of the gross spread, that portion of the proceeds which represents compensation to the underwriters must, in the Board's view, be clearly identified as such. Thus, use of the terms "underwriter's discount" or "net to underwriters" would be acceptable; the term "bond discount," however, is confusing and is, therefore, inappropriate.

Letters of credit. This is in response to your letter dated August 1, 1980, requesting the Board’s views on the application of rule G-25 to bank standby letters of credit issued in connection with new issues of securities which the dealer department of the bank intends to underwrite. Specifically, you have asked our views on whether such transactions would violate rule G-25(b), which generally prohibits a municipal securities dealer from guaranteeing a customer against loss in municipal securities transactions.

For the reasons discussed below, rule G-25(b) would not prohibit a municipal securities bank dealer from issuing a letter of credit which is publicly disclosed and for the benefit of all holders of the security.

Rule G-25(b) is an antimanipulation rule which is primarily designed to prevent a municipal securities dealer from artificially stimulating the market in a security, for example, by "parking" it with a customer who has assumed no market risk. It does not appear that the issuance of a fully disclosed letter of credit provided by a bank dealer for the benefit of all bondholders could be used to serve a market manipulative purpose, even though the letter would also serve to protect the bank’s own customers. Generally, such letters of credit protect bondholders from particular risks of loss, such as the inability of the issuer to make payments of principal or interest. Bondholders are not protected from general market risks, however, and, like all bona fide purchasers of securities, they incur gains or losses as the market price of the bonds fluctuates. Moreover, unlike the situation contemplated by rule G-25 which addresses guarantees made by dealers to their customers, the bondholders for whose benefit a letter of credit is issued would not necessarily have a customer relationship with the bank dealer issuing the letter. MSRB interpretation of March 6, 1981.

“Wooden tickets.”  This is in response to your letter of February 4, 1981 asking whether the practice of a broker-dealer using “wooden tickets” is prohibited by Board rule G-17. According to your letter, this practice refers to the mailing of confirmations of sales to customers who, in fact, have not placed orders to purchase securities. Thereafter, if any customer objects, stating that it never authorized the transaction, the sale is canceled. You state that, in some cases, customers accept the transaction and make payment.

The Board has determined that the practice by a municipal securities dealer of knowingly issuing confirmations of sales to customers who have not placed orders to purchase the bonds is a deceptive, dishonest, and unfair practice under rule G-17. MSRB interpretation of March 3, 1981.

Financial advisory relationship: blanket agreement. I refer to your letter of December 4, 1980 and a subsequent conversation regarding the application of rule G-23(d) to the participation by your client, a municipal securities dealer, in the underwriting of securities to be issued by the County referred to in your letter (the "County").

Rule G-23(d) provides in pertinent part that no municipal securities dealer "that has a financial advisory relationship with respect to a new issue of municipal securities shall acquire as principal ... from the issuer all or any portion of such issue ..." unless the dealer complies with certain specified provisions of the rule. You indicate that your client has a financial advisory agreement with the County which provides that your client will furnish financial advisory services from time to time at the County’s request. You state, however, that your client was not requested to furnish financial advisory services with respect to the particular issue of securities which the County now proposes to sell and was selected by the County after responding to an advertisement for underwriters. You request our concurrence in your opinion that a financial advisory relationship with respect to the proposed new issue does not exist.

For purposes of the rule, a financial advisory relationship is deemed to exist when a "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 ..." (emphasis added). Therefore, where a dealer has entered into a blanket agreement to render financial advisory services, a financial advisory relationship with respect to a particular issue of securities may be presumed to exist despite the fact that the municipal securities dealer does not furnish any financial advice concerning such issue. Whether or not your client has a financial advisory relationship with respect to the proposed new issue referred to in your letter is a factual question which we are not in a position to resolve. Therefore, we are unable to concur in your opinion. MSRB interpretation of January 5, 1981.

"Person." Your letter regarding rule G-20 has been referred to me. Rule G-20 prohibits a municipal securities professional from giving gifts or providing services to a person in relation to the municipal securities activities of such person's employer, in excess of a specified amount.

In your letter, you inquire whether the term "person" in rule G-20 is intended to include "a ‘corporate’ person as well as a ‘real’ person."As used in the rule, the term "person" refers only to a natural person. The rule is intended to discourage municipal securities professionals from attempting to induce individual employees from acting in a manner inconsistent with their obligations to, or contrary to the interests of, their employers. MSRB interpretation of March 19, 1980.

Municipal securities representative: credit department employees. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 18, 1979, concerning a proposed arrangement for the performance of municipal credit analysis functions at your bank. In your letter you indicate that the bank wishes to have certain basic statistical and data gathering activities with respect to proposed new issues of municipal securities performed by its Credit Department. The Credit Department will provide the information resulting from these activities to registered personnel in the Investment Department, which will evaluate the credit of the issuer and determine the appropriateness of the issue for the bank's own investment activities and for the bank's customers. You inquire whether the personnel in the Credit Department would be required to register and qualify as municipal securities representatives due to their performance of these activities.

Your question was referred to a committee of the Board which has the responsibility for administering the professional qualifications program on the Board's behalf. The Committee concluded that such persons would not be required to register and qualify as representatives if their functions are limited to information-gathering and performance of basic statistical computations. However, if such persons engage in any type of evaluative activity or if such persons make recommendations or suggest conclusions with respect to the securities, registration and qualification would be required. Further, should these persons produce any documents or research products intended for distribution or for use in the solicitation of customers, they would be required to register and qualify. MSRB interpretation of December 10, 1979.

Agency transaction: pricing. Your letter of August 3, 1979 has been referred to me for response. In your letter you inquire as to the relationship between the requirements to show on customers confirmations the "yield at which transaction is effected" and the "resulting dollar price," particularly in the context of agency transactions where the professional receives a concession or other dealer reallowance as its remuneration.

Under rule G-15, the dollar price disclosed to a customer must be calculated on the basis of the yield at which the transaction was effected. This calculation is made without reference to any possible concession or other allowance which a municipal securities dealer may receive from another municipal securities professional. Accordingly, the dollar price shown on a customer confirmation will always be derived directly from the yield price.

For example, a municipal securities dealer seeking to purchase $100,000 fifteen-year bonds with a 5% coupon as agent for a customer would commonly purchase the securities from another professional at a yield price less a concession (e.g., "5.60½"), and confirm to the customer at the net yield price ("5.60"), retaining the concession as its remuneration. In our example, the customer confirmation would be required to disclose the "yield at which transaction is effected" ("5.60"), the "resulting dollar price" ("93.96"), and the fact that the dealer received $500 as its remuneration in the form of a dealer concession. The dollar price is computed directly from the yield price, and is not net of the concession received.

The confusion may arise from comparing the confirmation sent to a customer to the confirmation sent to the professional on the other side of a transaction. On the inter-dealer confirmation, the "yield at which transaction is effected" will be shown, as well as the amount of the concession, but the unit dollar price may be expressed net of the concession (in our example, "93.46," being the gross dollar price of "93.96" less the ½ point reallowance). This may give the appearance of a difference in price between the purchase and sale confirmations, but in fact both transactions are being effected at the same yield price (in our example, "5.60"), and the dollar price disclosed to the customer is the result of this yield. MSRB interpretation of September 20, 1979.

NOTE: The above letter refers to the text of rule G-15 as in effect prior to amendments effective on January 16, 1992.

Legend satisfying requirement. I refer to your letter of June 29, 1979 in which you request advice regarding rule G-21(c) on product advertisements. As you noted in your letter, the notice of approval of rule G-34 [prior rule on advertising] stated that the Board believes that the advertisements may be misleading if they show

only a percentage rate without specifying whether it is the coupon rate or yield and, if yield, the basis on which calculated (for example, discount, par or premium securities and if discount securities, whether before-tax or after-tax yield).

You have requested advice as whether the following legend, to be used in connection with the sale of discount bonds, would be satisfactory for purposes of the rule:

"Discount bonds may be subject to capital gains tax. Rates of such tax vary for individual taxpayers. Discount yields shown herein are gross yields to maturity."

As I previously indicated to you in our telephone conversation, the proposed legend would satisfy the requirements of rule G-21(c). MSRB interpretation of August 28, 1979.

Records of original entry. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 13, 1979, concerning the requirement under Board rule G-8 for records of original entry. In your letter you discuss a "Bond Register" used by your firm, which is organized by security, and presents on separate cards all transactions in particular securities arranged in chronological order. You inquire whether this is satisfactory for purposes of the Board's recordkeeping rule.

The "record of original entry" required under rule G-8(a)(i) is intended to reflect all transactions effected by a municipal securities dealer on a particular day, all transactions cleared on such day, and all receipts and disbursements of cash on such day. The record is intended to provide a complete review of the dealer's activity for the day in question. It is therefore necessary that the record be organized by date. A record organized by security would not serve the purposes of a record of original entry as envisioned in the Board's rule. MSRB interpretation of August 9, 1979.

Clerical or ministerial duties. I refer to your letter of June 22, 1979, in which you request advice regarding the applicability of rule G-3 on professional qualifications to an employee of [Company name deleted]. According to your letter, the activities of the employee in question are limited to checking the mathematical accuracy of bids received by an issuer for which [Company name deleted] acts as financial advisor and reporting the results to the issuer.

Based on the facts stated in your letter, the employee is not required to qualify as a municipal securities representative under rule G-3. The Board does not intend the qualification requirements of the rule to apply to persons performing solely clerical or ministerial functions, such as in this case. MSRB interpretation of July 24, 1979.

Maintenance of securities record. I refer to your letter of April 9, 1979 concerning rule G-8(a)(iii), which requires the maintenance of a securities record. This letter is intended to address your questions concerning that provision.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) requires every municipal securities dealer to make and keep

records showing separately for each municipal security all positions (including, in the case of a municipal securities dealer other than a bank dealer, securities in safekeeping) carried by such municipal securities dealer for its own account or for the account of a customer (with all "short" trading positions so designated), the location of all such securities long and the offsetting position to all such securities short, and the name or other designation of the account in which each position is carried.

Rule G-8(a)(iii) further provides that "[s]uch records shall consist of a single record system...," and that "...a bank dealer shall maintain records of the location of securities in its own trading account."

The purpose of the requirement to maintain a "securities record" is to provide a means of securities control, ensuring that all securities owned by the dealer or with respect to which the dealer has outstanding contractual commitments are accounted for in the dealer's records. To achieve this purpose, the record is commonly constructed in "trial balance" format, with information as to the "ownership" of securities reflected on the "long," or debit side, and information as to the location on the "short," or credit side of the record. The record therefore serves a different function from the subsidiary records, such as the "fail" records, required to be maintained under other provisions of the rule. The subsidiary records reflect the details of particular securities transactions; the securities record assures that a municipal securities dealer's over-all position is in balance.

In your letter you inquire specifically whether this record can be constructed through the use of duplicate copies of subsidiary records. The rule requires a system of records organized by security, showing all positions in such security. Record systems organized by position or locations, showing all securities held in such position or location, cannot serve the same balancing and control function.

The securities record, however, does not have to be maintained on a single sheet or ledger card per security. Although this is the most common means of maintaining a securities record, certain municipal securities dealers prepare segments of the record in different physical locations, bringing the segments together at the close of the business day to compose the securities record. This practice is permissible under the rule.

Finally, you have inquired regarding the possibility of maintaining the securities record on a unit system basis. Records in such a system are kept in the form of a group of documents or related groups of documents, most often files of duplicate confirmations. The maintenance of the securities record on such a basis would be acceptable provided that the required information is clearly and accurately reflected and there is an adequate basis for audit. I would note, however, that utilization of a unit system would probably only be feasible for a municipal securities dealer with very limited activity.

I hope this letter is helpful to you in responding to inquiries from your members. If you or any of your members have any further questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us. MSRB interpretation of April 16, 1979.

Callable securities: pricing to call. Your letter, dated January 25, 1979 has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you raise a question regarding pricing of callable securities under rules G-12 and G-15. Specifically, you inquire as to how the dollar price should be calculated for transactions in a particular issue of [Name of bond deleted] bonds. The terms of the issue provide in pertinent part that the securities are subject to redemption prior to maturity on or after October 1, 1984, at declining premiums, from the proceeds of prepayments of mortgage loans (the "1984 call feature").

As you know, Board rules G-12 and G-15 require that

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

As an interpretive matter, the Board has adopted the position that 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.

With respect to your question, the Board is of the view that the dollar price for transactions involving the securities in question should not be calculated to the 1984 call feature. The Board bases its conclusion on (1) the fact that it is extremely unlikely as a practical matter that the call would be exercised as to all or even a significant part of the issue (that is, it is much more likely to operate in practice as an "in part" call) and (2) the exercise of the 1984 call feature would depend on events which are not subject to the control of the issuer. I note that the Board cited this as the reason for not utilizing "catastrophe call" features for purposes of price calculation. MSRB interpretation of March 9, 1979.

Furnishing of official statements: duplication of copies. [It] is the Board’s position that if an official statement is made available by an issuer, it is incumbent upon municipal securities dealers to see that their customers receive copies of the official statement. A municipal securities dealer cannot avoid the rule on the grounds that the issuer did not supply a sufficient number of official statements for distribution. The dealer in such a case has to bear the burden of reproducing the official statement. MSRB interpretation of March 7, 1979.

Note: The above letter refers to the text of rule G-32 as in effect prior to the amendments effective on August 30, 1985.

Particularity of legend. I refer to your recent letter in which you inquired regarding the appropriateness of using a particular legend to satisfy certain requirements of rule G-15 on customer confirmations. As you note in your letter, rule G-15 requires that information concerning time of execution of a transaction and the identity of the contra-side of an agency transaction be furnished to customers, at least upon request. You have requested advice as to whether the following legend satisfies the requirements of rule G-15 with respect to this information:

"Other details about this trade may be obtained by written request to the above address."

We are of the opinion that the legend in question does not satisfy the requirements of rule G-15 because it is too general in nature. The legend does not sufficiently apprise customers of their right to obtain information pertaining to the time of execution of a transaction or the identity of the contra-party, as contemplated by rule G-15. A legend specifically alluding to the availability of such information is necessary to satisfy the rule.

The Board has not adopted a standardized form, nor approved particular language for use in compliance with the requirements of the rule. I believe, however, that [Name deleted] is a member of the Dealer Bank Association. I suggest that you refer to the Forms Book prepared by the Dealer Bank Association, which may be of help to you. MSRB interpretation of March 6, 1979.

Employer of customer’s spouse. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of January 10, 1979, requesting an interpretive opinion with respect to rule G-28 of the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board (the "Board"). Rule G-28 requires a municipal securities dealer to take certain specified actions in connection with municipal securities transactions effected for the account of customers who are employed by, or the partner of another municipal securities dealer or for or on behalf of the spouse or minor child of such a person. I understand from a subsequent conversation which we had that your principal concern is whether a municipal securities dealer must obtain information regarding the employer of a spouse of a current customer, in view of the requirements of rule G-28.

Although rule G-28 applies to the spouse or minor child of a customer who is employed by another municipal securities dealer, there is no requirement at the present time in rule G-28 or in rule G-8, the recordkeeping rule, for a municipal securities dealer to obtain information about the employment status of spouses or minor children. Accordingly, a municipal securities dealer does not have to inquire of current customers whether their spouses are employed by another municipal securities dealer. A municipal securities dealer would have to comply with rule G-28 if the dealer actually knows that a spouse is employed by another municipal securities dealer. MSRB interpretation of March 6, 1979.

Clerical or ministerial duties. This will acknowledge receipt of your letter in which you request advice concerning whether certain persons employed by [Name deleted] must qualify as municipal securities representatives under rule G-3.

In the case of one of the individuals, you state in your letter that he is responsible for calculating coupon rates for new issue securities, based on information provided to him by persons in [Name deleted] underwriting department. According to your letter, the individual has some discretion to "revise coupon rates to a more marketable figure," but all of his activities are subject to the approval of, and supervised by, municipal securities professionals in the department. We understand that he does not communicate with issuers, customers or other municipal securities dealers.

Based upon the facts set forth in your letter, we are of the view that the individual described performs only clerical or ministerial functions in calculating the coupon scale, and he is therefore not a municipal securities representative within the meaning of rule G-3.

In your letter, you also request advice regarding certain individuals whose only function is to receive telephonic orders for municipal securities from municipal securities dealers. We understand that these individuals do not solicit orders, negotiate prices or the terms of transactions, or transmit offers to prospective purchasers, nor do they communicate at any time with customers. Based upon the facts you have provided, we are of the opinion that these individuals perform only clerical or ministerial functions, and they are therefore also not municipal securities representatives within the meaning of rule G-3. MSRB interpretation of December 8, 1978.

Communication of information. I refer to your letter dated October 23, 1978 in which you request advice concerning the application of certain provisions of rule G-11. In your letter, you state that it is your understanding that the requirement in the rule for a syndicate manager to communicate information regarding the priority to be accorded to different orders could be satisfied if an agreement among underwriters provides for the managing underwriters, in their discretion, to establish the priorities to be accorded to different types of orders for the purchase of bonds from the syndicate so long as information as to the priorities so established is furnished to the members of the syndicate prior to the beginning of the order period.

Rule G-11 would permit the inclusion of a provision delegating to the managing underwriters the authority to establish the priority provisions under which the syndicate would operate. However, under section (f) of rule G-11, such information must be provided by the senior syndicate manager in writing to other members of a syndicate "prior to the first offer of any securities by a syndicate." Accordingly, if there is a presale period, the required disclosure must be made prior to the commencement of such period, and not prior to "the beginning of the order period." The procedures outlined in your letter would be permissible under the rule only if no securities are offered by a syndicate prior to the order period. MSRB interpretation of November 9, 1978.

Settlement of syndicate accounts. Your letter dated September 25, 1978, regarding rule G-12 has been referred to me for reply. In your letter, you inquire as to whether the requirement in section (j) of rule G-12 to settle syndicate accounts within 60 days following the date all securities are delivered to syndicate members, applies in all circumstances. Specifically, you ask whether the time for settlement may be extended under the rule in the event that the syndicate has not received all expense bills prior to the expiration of that period.

There is no provision in rule G-12 for extending the 60-day period in the circumstances which you described. In adopting this requirement, the Board sought to achieve an equitable balance between the interests of syndicate members and syndicate managers in settling syndicate accounts. The Board believes that the 60-day period provides sufficient time to enable syndicate managers to settle on syndicate accounts and represents a reasonable time within which such accounts should be settled. It is therefore incumbent upon a syndicate manager to encourage persons to submit bills to the syndicate on a timely basis. The syndicate manager will otherwise have to settle the account within the prescribed time period and make adjustments subsequently when late bills are finally received. MSRB interpretation of November 1, 1978.

Municipal securities representative. Your letter dated October 16, 1978, has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you request clarification of whether personnel in your firm will have to take and pass the Board's qualification examination for municipal securities representatives, since they only effect transactions with other municipal securities professionals.

Board rule G-3(a)(iii)[*] defines the term "municipal securities representative" to mean a natural person associated with a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer who performs certain specified functions, which include "trading or sales of municipal securities." A person is deemed to be a municipal securities representative under the rule whether he or she engages in such activities with customers or only other municipal securities professionals. Accordingly, personnel in your firm who only trade with, or sell securities to other municipal securities professionals will have to take and pass the examination for municipal securities representatives, unless they are exempted under the provisions of rule G-3(e)(ii)[†]. MSRB interpretation of October 27, 1978.

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

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(ii)(B)]

Records of original entry. Your letter dated October 13, 1978, has been referred to me for response. In your letter you inquire whether a certain method of keeping "records of original entry" is satisfactory for purposes of the requirement to maintain "current" books and records. In particular, you suggest that such records could be maintained by means of a "unit" or "ticket" system during the period from trade date to settlement date, and then recorded on a blotter as of the settlement date.

As indicated to you, such a method of preserving these records is acceptable, provided that all information required to be shown is clearly and accurately reflected in both forms of the record, and both forms provide adequate audit controls. MSRB interpretation of October 26, 1978.

Callable securities: pricing to call. Your letter dated May 1, 1978 concerning the pricing to call provisions of rules G-12 and G-15 has been referred to me for response. In your letter, you request clarification of the application of such provisions to a situation in which securities have been prerefunded and the escrow fund is to be held to the maturity date of the securities. We understand that the securities in question are part of a term issue, sold on a yield basis, and are subject to a mandatory sinking fund call beginning two years prior to maturity.

Under rules G-12 and G-15, the dollar price of a transaction effected on a yield basis must be calculated to the lowest of price to premium call price to par option or price to maturity. 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.

Accordingly, the calculation of the dollar price of a transaction in the securities in your example should be made to the maturity date. The existence of the sinking fund call should, however, be disclosed on the confirmation by an indication that the securities are "callable." The fact that the securities are prerefunded should also be noted on the confirmation. MSRB interpretation of June 8, 1978.

Portfolio credit analyst. This will acknowledge with thanks receipt of your letter dated May 2, 1978 concerning the status of persons occupying the position of portfolio credit analyst at your bank. Your letter, as well as our telephone conversations prior and subsequent to the letter, raise two questions concerning the status of such persons under Board rules. First, are the functions of a portfolio credit analyst subject to the requirements of rule G-1, which defines a separately identifiable dealer department or division of a bank? Second, must a portfolio credit analyst qualify as a municipal securities representative or municipal securities principal under Board rule G-3?

Although we recognize that the primary purpose of the portfolio credit analyst, as set forth in the material you furnished to me, is to review your bank's investment portfolio, a function not subject to Board regulation, to the extent that the analyst provides research advice and analysis in connection with your bank's underwriting, trading or sales activities, the analyst must be included within the municipal securities dealer department for purposes of rule G-1, and is subject to the qualification requirements of rule G-3.

Under Board rule G-1, a separately identifiable department or division of a bank is that unit of the bank which conducts all of the municipal securities dealer activities of the bank. Section (b) of the rule defines municipal securities dealer activities to include research with respect to municipal securities to the extent such research relates to underwriting, trading, sales or financial advisory and consultant services performed by the bank. Thus, we think it clear that for purposes of rule G-1, persons functioning as portfolio credit analysts who render research in connection with underwriting, trading or sales activities at your bank must be included within the separately identifiable department or division of the bank for purposes of rule G-1. This is consistent with the underlying purpose of rule G-1 to assure that all of the functions performed at the bank relating to the business of the bank as a municipal securities dealer are appropriately identified for purposes of supervision, inspection and enforcement.

Under rule G-3(a)(iii)[*] a municipal securities representative is defined as a person associated with a municipal securities broker or municipal securities dealer who performs certain functions similar to those defined as municipal securities dealer activities in rule G-1. The position of portfolio credit analyst as described in your letter and accompanying material appears to fit the definition of municipal securities representative to the extent that persons occupying such position perform research in connection with the bank's underwriting, trading or sales activities. Under rule G-3(e)[†], municipal securities representatives are required to qualify in accordance with Board rules. A similar result would obtain with respect to qualification as a municipal securities principal, if the portfolio credit analyst functions in a supervisory capacity. MSRB interpretation of June 8, 1978.

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

[†] [Currently codified at rule G-3(a)(ii)]

Extent and type of municipal securities activities. Your letter dated March 23, 1978 concerning compliance with the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's requirements has been referred to me for response.

The Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board was established by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975 as the primary rulemaking authority with respect to the activities of municipal securities brokers and dealers and with respect to transactions in municipal securities. The Board's rules apply to each municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer within the meaning of sections 3(a)(31) and 3(a)(30), respectively, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Act"), and all municipal securities brokers and dealers regardless of the volume of their municipal securities business, are subject to the rules promulgated by the Board insofar as transactions in municipal securities are concerned, whether such transactions are solicited or unsolicited.

Under section 15B(b)(2)(J) of the Act, the Board is directed to prescribe fees and charges payable by each municipal securities dealer and municipal securities broker to defray the costs and expenses of operating the Board. Pursuant to this authority, the Board adopted rules A-12 and A-14 which impose an initial fee and an annual fee on each municipal securities broker and municipal securities dealer. A copy of these rules are enclosed.

In approving MSRB rules A-12 and A-14, the Securities and Exchange Commission determined that these assessments are consistent with the statutory requirement that the MSRB be self-funding. We therefore request that you comply with these rules and forward your checks to us promptly. MSRB interpretation of May 3, 1978.